Evidence for ICRDAM-DPV (Science-Based Inseparable-Complementary-Reflective Dual-Aspect Monism, Equivalent to Spirituality-Based Dvi-Pakṣādvaita Vedānta)
Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal
<rlpvimal@yahoo.co.in>Dear all,
Some colleagues have requested that I provide evidence for ICDAM~DPV. Below are a few pieces of evidence. Additional details can be found in the following sections: 1 (specifically 1.1.2 and 1.1.3), 3.2, 4 (which contains detailed information), 6, 9, 10, 17, 19, 21, 24, 26, 30, 31, and 34 (which also contains detailed information) of (Vimal, 2025a, attached).4. The Dual-Aspect Hypothesis: Exploring Subjective and Non-Subjective Intertwined Realities
Q. What are the (empirical, samadhi state, or any kind of ) evidence for the hypothesis in ICRDAM~DPV (science-based Inseparable-Complementary-Reflective Dual-Aspect Monism ~ (equivalent to) spirituality-based Dvi-Pakṣādvaita Vedānta) that a state of an entity (living or non-living from micro to macro) is a dual-aspect state with inseparable, complementary, and reflective subjective and non-subjective aspects (Vimal, 2023, 2024a, 2024b, 2025a, 2025b)?
1. Unpacking the Dual-Aspect State: Philosophical, Phenomenological, and Theoretical Perspectives
The hypothesis that a state of an entity (living or non-living, micro to macro) is a dual-aspect state with inseparable, complementary, and reflective subjective and non-subjective aspects is central to the DPV~ICRDAM framework. This framework proposes that every entity exists as a dual-aspect state (DAS) with inseparable, complementary, and reflective subjective (s) and non-subjective (ns) aspects. To evaluate whether any empirical, samādhi-based, or other types of evidence exist to support this hypothesis, we can approach it in three complementary domains: empirical evidence, samādhi-state evidence, and philosophical/conceptual support.
2. Empirical Evidence (Scientific and Phenomenological)
While current science does not directly acknowledge subjectivity in non-living systems, there are indirect empirical signs compatible with the dual-aspect hypothesis, especially when interpreted through the lens of panexperientialist or dual-aspect monist metaphysics.
A. Quantum Phenomena and Observer Dependence
Quantum Mechanics suggests that the state of an observed system appears to depend on measurement, indicating an entanglement or interaction between the DAS related to the observational experience (s-aspect) of the DAS of an observer and the DAS related to the physical observed entity. The observed entity is a stimulus that generate stimulus-dependent feed-forward signal as a representation of external object in the brain’s neural-physical activitiy (NPA) as the inseparable-complmentary-reflective ns-aspect. Interpretations of QM (Quantum Mechanics) like QBism (Fuchs, 2010) and Relational Quantum Mechanics (Rovelli, 1996) highlight the participatory nature of observation, suggesting that the DAS of the observer with subjectivity as s-aspect and objectivity as the inseparable-complmentary-reflective ns-aspect interdependently co-arises through observer_DAS-observed_DAS interaction, aligning with DPV~ICRDAM's reflective and inseparable dual-aspect state (DAS). A measured quantum system appears to reflect back the subjective choice of the observer, suggesting a form of s↔ns reflection, though not directly proving subjectivity in the observed system (such as electron with spin-up after measurment) itself.
B. Neuroscience of Consciousness
In the brain, every change in physical structure (e.g., neural activity) co-reflects a change in experience, and vice versa. Neural correlates of consciousness (NCC) point to an immediate and specific mapping between the ns-aspect (physical brain state) and the s-aspect (qualitative experience) (Koch, 2004). These correlations are tight, immediate, and reproducible, supporting the complementary and inseparable reflection in living systems. In conscious beings, the DAS structure (s ↔ ns) appears empirically observable in the tight coupling between experience and physical configuration.
C. Integrated Information Theory (IIT) based on ICRDAM
Tononi’s IIT treats consciousness as intrinsic integrated information (Tononi, 2008), interpretable as a dual-aspect ontology (explain in (Vimal, 2022) where one aspect is experiential (Φ) and the other is structural-functional (cause-effect power). IIT asserts that even minimal systems (not just humans) may possess proto-consciousness or intrinsic s-aspect, implying pervasive dual-aspectness. IIT offers formalism that resembles the DAS model, especially for micro-entities with non-zero Φ. The ICRDAM-based IIT is elaborated in (Vimal, 2022).
3. Samādhi-State (Yogic/Transcendental) Evidence
Yogic traditions report experiences in deep meditation (nirvikalpa samādhi, sahaja samādhi) that directly intuit the duality (in conventional/vyāvahārika SB reality)[i] and unity (in ultimate/pāramārthika NB reality) of subjective (s) and non-subjective (ns, objective) reality, where SB is Saguna Brahman abd NB is Nirguna Brahman.
A. Upaniṣadic Realization
Realizations like “ahaṁ brahmāsmi” or “sarvaṁ khalvidaṁ brahma” during samādhi reveal the inseparability of experience (as the s-aspect of a DAS of an observer/experiencer) and the experienced (represented as brain’s NPA in the ns-aspect of the same DAS of the same observer/experiencer), suggestive of the reflective dual-aspect nature of existence (Maitrī Upaniṣad VI.28). These intuitive insights reflect the inseparable and reflective s-ns relation at the heart of DPV~ICRDAM’s DAS structure. This is a piece of evidence at samadhi DAS.
B. Kashmir Śaivism: Pratyabhijñā (प्रत्यभिज्ञा)[ii] Insight
Reports from advanced practice affirm that each object is a reflection of Śiva-consciousness—no object (ns) exists without the s-aspect (Cit) reflecting in it (Abhinavagupta, Tantrāloka). The world is seen as conscious and participatory, where the experiencer and experienced are interpenetrating aspects of one dynamic reality (Rastogi, 1996).
C. Neo-Vedantic Realizations (Ramana, Aurobindo, etc.)
Ramaṇa Maharṣi (रमण महर्षि) (2006) and Śrī Aur̥bindo (श्री औरबिन्दो) (1999) report integral awareness where matter and consciousness are one, reflecting inseparability and complementarity of s and ns aspects. These reports suggest that even matter has a proto-subjective depth, visible in altered or enlightened states of perception. In samādhi, realized yogis perceive a unified ontological DAS structure of all entities, where the object (ns: representation in brain’s NPA) and the subject (s) reflect each other, not as illusions but as real, co-emerging aspects.
4. Philosophical and Conceptual Support (Including Logical Necessity)
Even if direct evidence is limited, philosophical arguments can show the necessity of dual-aspect ontology.
A. Spinoza’s Dual-Aspect Monism:
Spinoza (1677) identified thinking (s-aspect) and extension (ns-aspect) as attributes of one underlying substance, implying every entity has both aspects inherently. This resonates strongly with DPV~ICRDAM’s DAS model.
B. Strawson’s Realistic Monism:
Galen Strawson (2006) argues that experiential and physical properties are aspects of one reality, and every physical entity has proto-experiential being. The idea that experience is fundamental leads naturally to a dual-aspect ontology (Strawson, 2006).
C. Vimal’s DPV~ICRDAM Framework:
The DPV~ICRDAM framework argues that any change in the ns-aspect (e.g., physical form, energy dynamics) must be faithfully reflected in the s-aspect (subjective experience) and vice versa, grounded in a non-causal, reflective ontological relation. This provides internal coherence and explanatory power to unify mind and matter. According to Vimal (2023), changes in the ns-aspect (physical) immediately and faithfully reflect in the s-aspect (experiential) and vice versa, without one causing the other. This reflective symmetry requires both aspects to be inseparable and complementary, forming the DAS of any state (Vimal, 2023). The model is particularly powerful in explaining not only consciousness but also the structure of physical reality, reconciling quantum physics and subjective experience under a unified framework.
4. Addressing Challenges and Implications
A. Vegetative States and Dual-Aspect Theory
Wall Street Journal: Some Patients Who Appear Unconscious Know What's Going On. Aug 14, 2024
B. Electromagnetic Forces as Protoconsciousness
The proposal that attraction and repulsion between charges (such as an electron and a positron) and the repulsion experienced between similar charges (such as electron and electron) can be interpreted as protoconsciousness (protoC) – subjective qualities in non-biological systems – is philosophically intriguing and finds support in panpsychist literature. Physics currently tells us nothing about the intrinsic nature of matter, leaving conceptual space for subjective aspects. Historically, Empedocles' elements were presided over by two animate forces, Love (attraction) and Strife (repulsion), indicating a panpsychist worldview (Empedocles). Contemporary panpsychists suggest that physics describes how an electron behaves, but the electron itself instantiates electron_protoconsciousness. The DPV~ICRDAM framework supports this by proposing universal dual-aspect states where all entities, from electrons to galaxies, could be modeled with inseparable subjective and non-subjective aspects. The suggestion that the "function of any entity" could be considered protoC aligns with viewing electromagnetic interactions as primitive subjective experiences.
5. Conclusion
While mainstream empirical science does not yet accept that non-living or micro entities possess a subjective aspect with protoconsciousness, multiple converging strands of quantum theory, neuroscience, yogic introspection, and philosophical analysis support the plausibility of the dual-aspect state (DAS) hypothesis. The reflective relation between the subjective (s) and non-subjective (ns) aspects, as posited in DPV~ICRDAM, is not yet conclusively proven empirically but is increasingly supported by developments in quantum theories of consciousness, integrated information theory, and first-person samādhi-based realizations. Therefore, DPV~ICRDAM's hypothesis that every entity exists as a reflective, complementary, and inseparable DAS remains one of the most unifying and promising ontologies bridging science, philosophy, and spirituality. The convergence of evidence suggests that consciousness-like subjectivity may be an intrinsic dimension of all entities, expressed differently across scales and contexts.
[i] In conventional reality (vyāvahārika satya), subjects and objects serve distinct functional purposes for survival, yet they are interconnected components of a dual-aspect Saguṇa Brahman (SB)—the attribute-laden, manifest form of Brahman. This gross Saguṇa Brahman arises from and ultimately dissolves back into the neutral Nirguṇa Brahman (NB), which is neither explicitly attributeless nor explicitly attribute-laden. Nirguṇa Brahman represents the absolute truth (pāramārthika satya) that exists beyond all distinctions. It embodies the concept of diversity within unity.
In other words, subject_SB and objects_SB functionally appear different for our survival in conventional reality (vyāvahārika satya), but are parts of the same gross SB, which manifests from and returns to NB in ultimate reality (pāramārthika satya).
The DPV~ICRDAM provides scientific justification that NB~preBB_QVF is both material and efficient cause of our dual-aspect (DA) psychophysical universe (DA_PPU) through scientific phase transition from the neutral preBB_QVF~NB phase to DA unified field (DA_UF) ~ DA_UF_SB phase due to temperature drop from BB to pre-Planck epoch. Then symmetry breaking of DA_UF to four fields (gravitational, EM, weak, and strong fields) and further evolution of DA_PPU to us as DA_ADS (active dynamic self) as subject/enjoyer/experiencer (efficient cause) and objects (material cause) to be enjoyed/experienced for survival in our mundane lives. In other words, subject-object duality is mandatory for survival in conventional/practical/vyāvahārika reality, but both subjects and objects as parts of cosmic DA_SB ~DA_PPU manifest from and return to unified, eternal, neutral NB~Pre-BB_QVF in ultimate/pāramārthika realty. Thus, diversity within unity is essential and valid.
In conventional reality (vyāvahārika satya), subjects and objects serve distinct functional purposes for survival, yet they are interconnected components of a dual-aspect Saguṇa Brahman (SB)—the attribute-laden, manifest form of Brahman. This gross Saguṇa Brahman arises from and ultimately dissolves back into the neutral Nirguṇa Brahman (NB), which is neither explicitly attributeless nor explicitly attribute-laden. Nirguṇa Brahman represents the absolute truth (pāramārthika satya) that exists beyond all distinctions. It embodies the concept of diversity within unity. In other words, subject_SB and objects_SB functionally appear different for our survival in conventional reality (vyāvahārika satya), but are parts of the same gross SB, which manifests from and returns to NB in ultimate reality (pāramārthika satya).
Furthermore, Advaita distinguishes between absolute reality (pāramārthika satta) and empirical reality (vyavahārika satta). The enjoyer-enjoyed [BS147] distinction belongs to the latter, while Nirguṇa Brahman constitutes the former. This hierarchical ontology allows Advaita to affirm both the ultimate non-duality of existence and the pragmatic reality of distinctions in everyday experience (Potter, 1981).
In Advaita Vedānta, Brahma Sūtra 2.1.13 (BS147) addresses a fundamental objection to non-dualism by explaining how the empirical distinction between enjoyer (bhoktṛ) and enjoyed (bhogya) can exist within the framework of ultimate non-dual reality. According to Śaṅkarācārya, this distinction operates only at the empirical level (vyavahārika) of existence while dissolving in the transcendental, absolute reality (pāramārthika) where only Nirguṇa Brahman (NB) exists (Śaṅkarācārya, 1960). The analogy "as is experienced commonly in the world" (lokavat) demonstrates how apparent distinctions can coexist with underlying unity, just as waves appear distinct yet remain essentially water.
[ii] Pratyabhijñā (प्रत्यभिज्ञा)
The term "Pratyabhijñā" (प्रत्यभिज्ञा) translates to "recognition" or "direct knowledge of oneself." It is formed from the Sanskrit roots prati- ("re-"), abhi- ("closely"), and jñā ("to know"), signifying a "re-cognition" or direct, intimate knowing of one's true nature.
In the context of Kashmir Śaivism, Pratyabhijñā refers to a philosophical branch that emphasizes the recognition or realization of one's own self as Śiva, the ultimate reality. It proposes that the individual soul (jiva) is not separate from the universal consciousness (Śiva), but rather is a manifestation or reflection of it. The path of Pratyabhijñā is about removing the veil of self-forgetfulness and recognizing this inherent divine nature. It suggests that liberation is not about acquiring something new, but about recognizing what is already present within.
-------------------------------------------------- --------
RāmLakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.
Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal
<rlpvimal@yahoo.co.in>6. Bridging Worlds: A Response to Critiques of the Dual-Aspect State Hypothesis within the DPV~ICRDAM Framework
Reaffirming the Dual-Aspect State: Addressing Empirical and Logical Challenges to DPV~ICRDAM
1. Abstract
This paper addresses critical feedback regarding the Dual-Aspect State (DAS) hypothesis, central to the science-based Inseparable-Complementary-Reflective Dual-Aspect Monism (ICRDAM) and spirituality-based Dvi-Pakṣādvaita Vedānta (DPV) framework. Specifically, it responds to concerns about the empirical evidence for DAS in elementary particles and the brain, the logical consistency of subjective and non-subjective aspects, and the framework's compatibility with contemporary science and traditional spirituality. We synthesize arguments from quantum mechanics, neuroscience, contemplative traditions, and philosophy to demonstrate that while direct empirical measurement of all aspects of DAS is a frontier, robust theoretical, inferential, and phenomenological support exists, positioning DPV~ICRDAM as a coherent and promising holistic paradigm.
2. Introduction
The DPV~ICRDAM framework posits that every entity, from micro to macro, exists as a dual-aspect state (DAS) characterized by inseparable, complementary, and reflective subjective (s) and non-subjective (ns) aspects (Vimal, 2023, 2024a, 2024b, 2025a, 2025b). This hypothesis aims to bridge perceived gaps between scientific and spiritual understandings of reality. Recent critical feedback has challenged the framework's foundational claims, questioning the empirical basis for DAS, its logical coherence, and its asserted grounding in both scientific principles and traditional spiritual tenets. This paper aims to address these specific critiques systematically, drawing upon existing scientific literature, philosophical arguments, and phenomenological accounts to provide a more comprehensive defense of the DAS hypothesis within the DPV~ICRDAM paradigm.
3. Analysis of Criticisms
The feedback raises several pertinent questions regarding the empirical validity and logical consistency of the DAS hypothesis, which we address below.
1. Dual-Aspect State in Elementary Particles (e.g., Electron/Photon)
It is important to note that, to be precise, we prefer to use “subjective (s)” in place of “non-physical (np)” and “non-subjective (ns)” in place of “physical (p)” because the term “physical” lacks precision and has multiple meanings.
The critique asserts a lack of empirical evidence for subjective (s) aspect in elementary particles like electrons or photons, and for a commensurate (corresponding) change in this s-aspect upon ns-aspect alteration, thereby labeling the DAS in particles as speculative belief.
While current scientific methodologies are not designed to directly detect or measure s-aspect in elementary particles in the same way they measure non-subjective (physical) properties, the DPV~ICRDAM framework, aligned with certain panpsychist and dual-aspect monist views, proposes that such particles possess a proto-conscious (protoC) or intrinsic subjective aspect (Goff, 2017; Strawson, 2006). This protoC is not a separate entity but an intrinsic, inseparable quality of the particle's very being (Vimal, 2023, 2025a). The "commensurate change" argument is central to the DAS. The framework posits a non-causal, reflective ontological relation where changes in the physical (ns-aspect) properties are immediately and faithfully reflected in the s-aspect (protoC), and vice versa (Vimal, 2023, 2025a). This is a definitional aspect of the DAS, not something expected to be measured with current instruments designed for physical parameters alone. The absence of a specific measurement technique for protoC does not negate its theoretical possibility or its role within a comprehensive ontological framework that seeks to address the intrinsic nature of matter (Vimal, 2025a). The idea that attraction and repulsion between charges could be interpreted as forms of protoconsciousness (Empedocles; Vimal, 2025a) further illustrates this conceptual space for subjective qualities in fundamental physics, even if not directly "measured" as such.
2. Dual-Aspect State in the Brain and fMRI Studies
The criticism states that while fMRI studies show a 1:1 correlation between ns-aspect and s-aspect, this does not prove a DAS. The argument centers on the apparent incompatibility of properties: the brain is public, quantifiable, measurable, discrete, and physical, while conscious subjective experiences (CSEs) are private, non-quantifiable, non-measurable, holistic, and subjectve.
DPV~ICRDAM addresses this by proposing that the observed 1:1 correlation is precisely what is expected in a dual-aspect monist framework, where the subjective and non-subjective are two sides of the same underlying reality, not separate entities or substances (Atmanspacher & Rickles, 2022). The "hard problem of consciousness" arises precisely from this perceived incompatibility (Chalmers, 1995). Dual-aspect monism (including DPV~ICRDAM) offers a solution by positing that subjective (mental, private, holistic) and non-subjective (physical, public, discrete) aspects are complementary manifestations of a single reality. Therefore, the empirical observation of Neural Correlates of Consciousness (NCC) (Koch, 2004) is not a disproof of DAS but rather strong empirical evidence for the tight coupling and inseparability proposed by the framework (Vimal, 2023, 2025a). The "private" nature of subjective experience is acknowledged, but within DPV~ICRDAM, it is seen as the intrinsic experiential aspect of the very same reality whose extrinsic, structural aspect is the publicly observable brain (Vimal, 2023, 2025a). The framework asserts that these seemingly disparate properties are complementary descriptions of the same underlying state.
3. Logical Incompatibility of Non-subjective (ns) and Subjective (s) Aspects
This critique argues that the inherent natures of ns and s are so fundamentally different (public vs. private, quantifiable vs. non-quantifiable, outbound vs. inbound) that their co-existence in a single DAS is logically untenable, and therefore, they cannot be complementary. It also notes that complementary aspects (like wave-particle duality) manifest under different conditions, whereas DAS posits co-manifestation.
The DPV~ICRDAM's concept of "complementarity" differs from the strict classical physics interpretation applied to, for instance, wave-particle duality. In DPV~ICRDAM, complementarity refers to a relationship where two aspects are mutually dependent, mutually informative, and both necessary for a complete understanding of a single underlying reality, even if they appear to have contrasting properties when viewed in isolation such as 1pp (1st person perspective) or 3pp (3rd pp) in isolation (Vimal, 2023, 2025a). The framework proposes a "reflective ontological relation" rather than a causal one (Vimal, 2023). The "inseparable, complementary, and reflective" nature means that these aspects always co-manifest simultaneously within the DAS (Vimal, 2023, 2025a). The logical "incompatibility" arises from attempting to apply a purely materialist or substance-dualist framework to a dual-aspect monist ontology. DPV~ICRDAM, as a form of dual-aspect monism, inherently accepts that the underlying reality manifests in these two distinct yet inseparable modes of being, thereby reconciling their seemingly contradictory properties within a unified conceptual framework (Atmanspacher & Rickles, 2022).
4. Overall Summary: Lack of Empirical Evidence and Logical Inconsistency
The criticism concludes that there is no empirical evidence for DAS in particles or the brain, and that the assumption of DAS is logically untenable, rendering it a dogmatic personal belief.
This comprehensive response to points 1-3 serves to directly counter this summary. While direct empirical measurement of subjectivity in non-living matter remains a challenge for current scientific tools, the DPV~ICRDAM framework draws on multiple lines of inferential support. These include:
· Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics that suggest observer-observed interdependence (Fuchs, 2010; Rovelli, 1996), aligning with the reflective aspect of DAS.
· Neuroscientific findings on NCC which demonstrate a tight coupling between brain states and subjective experience (Koch, 2004; Vimal, 2023).
· Philosophical arguments (e.g., panpsychism, dual-aspect monism) that provide a coherent metaphysical foundation for intrinsic subjectivity (Goff, 2017; Strawson, 2006; Atmanspacher & Rickles, 2022).
· Phenomenological accounts from samādhi states which report direct, non-dualistic experiences of subjective-objective unity (Aurobindo, 1999; Maharshi, 2006; Vimal, 2025a).
These converging lines of evidence, when interpreted within the DPV~ICRDAM framework, provide substantial theoretical and inferential support, arguing against the claim that DAS is merely a speculative or dogmatic belief.
5. Quantum Mechanics, Observer's Role, and DAS-DAS Interactions
The critique argues that QM's observer role does not prove DAS of the observer/object, and that DAS-DAS interactions are infeasible due to the private nature of the subjective aspect and the lack of observed s-s interactions between brains.
The DPV~ICRDAM framework interprets the participatory nature of observation in QM not as a direct proof of DAS, but as an indication of the deep, reflective interdependence between the observer's DAS and the observed entity's DAS (Vimal, 2025a). This interdependency aligns with the framework's core tenet that s and ns aspects are inseparable and reflective. The "category mistake" argument, suggesting issues with s-ns interactions, is addressed by the framework's assertion of a non-causal, reflective ontological relation within a single DAS, rather than an interaction between separate s and ns entities in the classical sense (Vimal, 2023, 2025a). Furthermore, DPV~ICRDAM does not necessarily imply direct, measurable "s-s interactions" between brains as commonly understood (e.g., telepathy), but rather a fundamental interconnectedness at the level of the underlying unified reality from which both s and ns aspects emerge (Vimal, 2023). The "private" nature of individual subjective experience in a conscious being is a key feature that DPV~ICRDAM seeks to explain within a unified ontological framework.
Quantum theories such as Quantum Bayesianism (QBism) (Fuchs, 2010) and Relational Quantum Mechanics (Rovelli, 1996) imply that quantum states depend on the observer’s intervention. When interpreted through DPV~ICRDAM, this mutual co-dependence suggests a reflective interaction between the subject (observer DAS) and object (observed DAS), where each quantum measurement reflects a choice (s-aspect) that co-manifests with the physical result (ns-aspect) (Vimal, 2025a).
In other words, for example, the DASobject is represented by a stimulus (electron’s spin-up causing the pointer in the apparatus to turn rightward)-dependent feed-forward (ff) signal. The DASff interacts with DASfb related to cognitive memory-dependent feedback (fb) signals for the resonance matching/nonmatching process in the observer’s brain. This <DASff Ä DASfb> interaction leads to classical collapse of superposed DASs into a specific beable ontic conscious DASsu related to stimulus (spin-up, su). This resultant DASsu interacts with the active dynamic self (ADS)-related DASads, <DASsu Ä DASads> and ADS experiences the rightward turning of the pointer related to spin-up of an electron.
Implication: Quantum systems behave as if embedded in subject-object reflection, pointing to DAS structure even in fundamental particles.
6. DPV~ICRDAM's Foundation: Science-Based and Spirituality-Based Claims
The critique challenges whether ICRDAM is truly science-based, given that contemporary science does not recognize DAS, and whether DPV is truly spirituality-based, as it allegedly does not accept essential Vedic features (e.g., OOO God, immortal soul, non-physical realms, karma, rebirth).
DPV~ICRDAM is posited as a "holistic paradigm" that aims to bridge science and spirituality (Vimal, 2023, 2025a).
A. Science-Based Claim:
· While mainstream science currently does not universally "recognize" DAS in all entities, ICRDAM proposes DAS as a scientific hypothesis that can integrate various scientific observations (like NCC and quantum phenomena) under a more comprehensive framework (Vimal, 2023, 2025a). It seeks to extend scientific understanding to include the intrinsic nature of reality, which often falls outside the purview of current empirical methods. The logical consistency of DAS is precisely what this paper aims to establish by addressing the criticisms.
B. Spirituality-Based Claim:
· DPV~ICRDAM, or Dvi-Pakṣādvaita Vedānta, is presented as an Advaita Vedānta-based model (Vimal, 2023, 2025a). While it might not align with all interpretations or schools of Vedic spirituality, it draws from principles that emphasize non-duality and the unity of subjective and objective reality, characteristic of many Vedantic and Yogic traditions (e.g., Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 1.4.10; Chāndogya Upaniṣad 3.14.1; Maharshi, 2006). The framework's ability to account for profound samādhi experiences, where subject-object duality dissolves, directly connects it to a core aspect of spiritual practice (Vimal, 2025a). DPV~ICRDAM, by proposing a universal DAS, offers a conceptual framework that can potentially accommodate different views on soul, karma, and rebirth by framing them as specific manifestations or dynamics within the overarching dual-aspect reality, rather than dismissing them (Vimal, 2025a). The framework is designed to be non-sectarian, seeking common ground rather than adherence to specific dogmas.
C. Samādhi-State and Yogic Evidence
The experiential domain offers strong support for the DAS hypothesis, with observations from advanced meditative states revealing the unity and inseparability of s- and ns-aspects.
In other words, in the above example, replace spin-up electron with red rose (rr). The DASrr interacts with DASads, <DASrr Ä DASads>, and ADS experiences the red rose in normal DAS. At the samādhi state, ADS and red rose merge (with each other), and the yogi experiences that s/he is red rose, i.e., DASrr ≡ (identical) DASads, which implies <DASads Ä DASads> self-interaction and the yogi experiences self-consciousness.
a. Upaniṣadic Realizations
Insights such as “ahaṁ brahmāsmi” (I am Brahman) and “sarvaṁ khalvidaṁ brahma” (All this is Brahman) from nirvikalpa samādhi states, as documented in texts like Maitrī Upaniṣad VI.28, articulate the reflective unity of experiencer and experienced (Vimal, 2025a).
Implication: Samādhi reveals the ontological DAS structure through direct perception of object/stimulus through <DASrr ≡ DASads> with inseparable s and ns aspects.
b. Kashmir Śaivism and Pratyabhijñā
Abhinavagupta’s Tantrāloka asserts that Śiva-consciousness reflects in every object. Thus, each apparently objective phenomenon (ns-aspect) is awash [saturated] with self-recognizing consciousness (s-aspect).
Implication: All entities are DASs of Cit (s-aspect) and objective manifestation (ns-aspect), even in Tantric non-dual realizations.
c. Neo-Vedāntic Realizations: Sri Aurobindo and Ramana Maharshi
Sri Aurobindo's Integral Yoga describes reality as “Matter and Spirit in unity,” while Ramana Maharshi perceives the self and the world as not-two, reflecting universal dual-aspect non-duality (Ramaṇa Maharṣi, 2006a; Vimal, 2025a).
· Implication: These experiences reinforce DPV's vision that matter and consciousness are always co-emerging and mirrored.
4. Synthesis with Previous Response to Support DPV~ICRDAM
The DPV~ICRDAM framework finds support not only in the nuanced interpretations of scientific observations but also in profound phenomenological and philosophical insights. The direct, non-dualistic experiences reported in advanced samādhi states across various contemplative traditions provide crucial first-person accounts. These states, such as Nirvikalpa Samādhi, describe a merging of the subjective meditator with the object of meditation into a state of "oneness," where the distinction between perceiver and perceived dissolves (Aurobindo, 1999; Ramaṇa Maharṣi, 2006; Vimal, 2025a). This experiential evidence strongly resonates with the DAS hypothesis, suggesting that at a fundamental level, the subjective and non-subjective are not separate but inseparable aspects of a unified reality.
Furthermore, Integrated Information Theory (IIT), especially when viewed through an ICRDAM lens (Vimal, 2022), provides a theoretical framework for understanding consciousness as intrinsic integrated information (Tononi, 2008). This aligns with the DAS concept by proposing that consciousness (s-aspect) is identical to the cause-effect structure (ns-aspect) of a system. This theoretical coherence, coupled with philosophical traditions like Dual-Aspect Monism (Spinoza, 1677; Atmanspacher & Rickles, 2022) and certain forms of Panpsychism (Russell, 1927), reinforces the conceptual foundation of DPV~ICRDAM.
The framework's ability to address complex scenarios like vegetative states further strengthens its explanatory power. By proposing that these states involve "vegetative protoconsciousness" (s-aspect) alongside compromised physical systems (ns-aspect) (Vimal, 2025a), DPV~ICRDAM offers a coherent interpretation of recent neuroimaging findings that demonstrate covert awareness in some unresponsive patients (Monti et al., 2010; Owen et al., 2006). This integrative capacity highlights how DPV~ICRDAM can bridge current scientific puzzles with a comprehensive ontological model.
5. Conclusion
The criticisms raised regarding the empirical evidence and logical consistency of the Dual-Aspect State (DAS) hypothesis, as central to the DPV~ICRDAM framework, are vital for refining any comprehensive theory. This response has demonstrated that while direct empirical measurement of all aspects of DAS, particularly protoconsciousness in micro-entities, remains an evolving frontier for scientific methodology, significant inferential support exists. This support stems from: 1) contemporary interpretations of quantum mechanics pointing to observer-observed interdependence; 2) neuroscientific evidence of tight neural correlates of consciousness; 3) rich phenomenological accounts from deep meditative states revealing subjective-objective unity; and 4) robust philosophical traditions (dual-aspect monism, panpsychism) that provide a consistent metaphysical grounding.
The DPV~ICRDAM framework (Vimal, 2023, 2024a, 2024b, 2025a, 2025b) offers a coherent logical structure for understanding the inseparable, complementary, and reflective relationship between subjective and non-subjective aspects. The apparent incompatibilities highlighted by the critique are precisely what a dual-aspect monist view aims to reconcile, not deny. By positing a non-causal, reflective ontological relation and an inherent proto-consciousness across all entities, DPV~ICRDAM provides a powerful lens through which to unify disparate observations and insights from both scientific inquiry and contemplative wisdom traditions. This positions DPV~ICRDAM as a promising holistic paradigm for bridging the perceived divide between science and spirituality.
7. References
Abhinavagupta. cite_start.
Abhinavagupta. Tantrāloka. (10th c. CE).
Atmanspacher, H., & Rickles, D. (2022). Dual-aspect monism and the deep structure of meaning. Routledge.
Aurobindo, S. (1999). The Life Divine. Sri Aurobindo Ashram Publication Department. Bekinschtein, T. A., et al. (2011). Selectively preserved consciousness in a patient with the vegetative state. Cambridge NeuroImage Clinical.
Boly, M., et al. (2011). Auditory processing in the vegetative state: An event-related potential study. Brain, 134(2), 346-356.
Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 1.4.10.
Chalmers, D. (1995). Facing up to the problem of consciousness. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 2(3), 200-219.
Chalmers, D. (1996). The conscious mind. Oxford University Press.
Chalmers, D. (2013). Panpsychism and panprotopsychism. The Amherst Lecture in Philosophy, 8, 1-35. [Reprinted in Consciousness and its place in nature, 2015, pp. 246-276]
Chāndogya Upaniṣad 3.14.1.
Cruse D., Chennu S., et al. (2011). “Bedside detection of awareness in the vegetative state: A cohort study.” The Lancet.
Cruse, D., et al. (2011). Detecting awareness in the vegetative state: An EEG study. Brain, 134(6), 1618-1626.
Fernández-Espejo, D., & Owen, A. M. (2013). The clinical utility of EEG-based motor imagery tasks in the vegetative state. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7.
Fernández-Espejo, D., et al. (2014). The BOLD signal in the vegetative state: Assessment of standard clinical MRI scanners. Brain Injury, 28(4), 405-412.
Fuchs, C. A. (2010). QBism, the perimeter of quantum Bayesianism. AIP Conference Proceedings, 1319(1), 77-83.
phenomenal knowledge (pp. 121-140). Oxford University Press.
Goff, P. (2015). Real acquaintance and physicalism. In P. Coates & S. Coleman (Eds.), Phenomenal concepts and phenomenal knowledge (pp. 121-140). Oxford University Press.
Goff, P. (2017). Consciousness and fundamental reality. Oxford University Press.
Goff, P. (2017). Consciousness and fundamental reality. Oxford University Press.
2(20), 533-543.
James, W. (1905). A world of pure experience. The Journal of Philosophy, Psychology and Scientific Methods, 2(20), 533-543.
Jung, C. G., & Pauli, W. (1955). The interpretation of nature and the psyche. Pantheon Books.
Koch, C. (2004). The quest for consciousness: A neurobiological approach. Roberts & Company Publishers.
Laurent, E., et al. (2007). Brain activity in vegetative state patients. Brain, 130(6), 1699-1709.
Lockwood, M. (1989). Mind, brain and the quantum. Blackwell.
Lockwood, M. (1992). The grain problem. In H. Robinson (Ed.), Objections to physicalism (pp. 271-291). Oxford University Press.
Maharṣi, Ramaṇa (2006a). The Collected Works of Ramana Maharshi. Sophia Perennis et Universalis. (रमण महर्षि).
Maharṣi, Ramaṇa (2006b). Be As You Are: The Teachings of Sri Ramana Maharshi. Penguin.
Maitrī Upaniṣad. (VI.28).
Maxwell, G. (1978). Rigid designators and mind-brain identity. Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 9, 365-403.
Monti, M. M., Laureys, S., Owen, A. M. (2010). “Willful modulation of brain activity in disorders of consciousness.” New England Journal of Medicine. 362(7), 579-589.
Mørch, H. H. (2014). Panpsychism and causation: A new argument and a solution to the combination problem [Doctoral dissertation]. University of Oslo.
Naci, L., & Owen, A. M. (2013). Making every word count for noncommunicative patients. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 25(11), 1801-1811.
Nagel, T. (1974). What is it like to be a bat? The Philosophical Review, 83(4), 435-450.
Owen, A. M., et al. (2006). Detecting awareness in the vegetative state. Science, 313(5792), 1402-1402.
Rastogi, N. (1996). The Tantraloka of Abhinavagupta: A study of the dual and non-dual aspects of the Tantric tradition. Motilal Banarsidass.
Rosenberg, G. H. (2004). A place for consciousness: Probing the deep structure of the natural world. Oxford University Press.
Rovelli, C. (1996). Relational quantum mechanics. International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 35(8), 1637-1678.
Russell, B. (1927). The analysis of matter. Kegan Paul.
Solms, M. (2021). The hidden spring: A journey to the source of consciousness. W. W. Norton & Company.
Spinoza, B. (1677). Ethics.
Spinoza, B. (2022). Ethics. Translated from 1677 original.
Strawson, G. (2003). Real materialism. In L. M. Antony & N. Hornstein (Eds.), Chomsky and his critics (pp. 49-88). Blackwell.
Strawson, G. (2006). “Realistic monism: Why physicalism entails panpsychism.” Journal of Consciousness Studies, 13.
Strawson, G. (2006a). Consciousness and its place in nature. In A. Freeman (Ed.), Consciousness and its place in nature (pp. 3-98). Imprint Academic.
Strawson, G. (2006b). Realistic monism: Why physicalism entails panpsychism. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 13(10-11), 3-31.
Tononi, G. (2008). Consciousness as integrated information: A first approximation. Biological Bulletin, 215(3), 216-242.
Tononi, G., Boly, M., Massimini, O., & Koch, C. (2016). Integrated information theory: From consciousness to its physical substrate. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 17(7), 450-461
Unger, P. (2005). All the power in the world. Oxford University Press.
Verma, S. et al. (2021). Neuroscience of the yogic theory of consciousness.
Vimal, R. L. P. (2022). The Inseparable-Complementary-Reflective Dual-Aspect Monism framework: Segregation and integration of information, the critical test for the inseparability between aspects, soul, and framework selection criteria. Vision Research Institute: Living Vision and Consciousness Research, 15(1), 1-68. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/361594023. (Vimal, 2022).
Vimal, R. L. P. (2023). Towards a Holistic Paradigm: Inseparable-Complementary-Reflective Dual-Aspect Monism and Dvi-Pakṣādvaita Vedānta can bridge the Gap between Science and Spirituality (Volume 1: Chapters 1-12). Vision Research Institute: Living Vision and Consciousness Research, 16(4), 1-1091. [Available: <Volume 1: (Vimal, 2023): https://www.researchgate.net/publication/377964854> and <(Vimal, 2023): https://www.academia.edu/121285641/>]. https://5mp.academia.edu/RamLakhanPandeyVimal
Vimal, R. L. P. (2024a). Towards a Holistic Paradigm: Inseparable-Complementary-Reflective Dual-Aspect Monism and Dvi-Pakṣādvaita Vedānta can bridge Science and Spirituality (Volume 2: Appendices).Vision Research Institute: Living Vision and Consciousness Research, 16(5), 1-800. Available: <Volume 2: (Vimal, 2024a): https://www.researchgate.net/publication/380850619> and (Vimal, 2024a): https://www.academia.edu/119946366>
Vimal, R. L. P. (2024b). Towards a Holistic Paradigm: Inseparable-Complementary-Reflective Dual-Aspect Monism and Dvi-Pakṣādvaita Vedānta can bridge Science and Spirituality (Volume 3: Discussions). Vision Research Institute: Living Vision and Consciousness Research, 16(6), 1-453. Available<Volume 3: (Vimal, 2024b): https://www.academia.edu/122272500/ and (Vimal, 2024b): https://www.researchgate.net/publication/382457706 >. Note: All volumes (Vimal, 2023, 2024a, 2024b, 2025a, 2025b) adopt a non-sectarian approach to bridge the two seemingly opposite major sects: spirituality and science. <Volume 3.1: (Vimal, 2024b.Volume 3.1): https://www.academia.edu/122272500/ and (Vimal, 2024b.Volume 3.1): https://www.researchgate.net/publication/382457706 > ]. Volume 3.2: (Vimal, 2024b.Volume 3.2): https://www.academia.edu/122272500/ and (Vimal, 2024b.Volume 3.1): https://www.researchgate.net/publication/382457706 > ]. <Volume 3.3: (Vimal, 2024b.Volume 3.3): https://www.academia.edu/122272500/ and (Vimal, 2024b.Volume 3.1): https://www.researchgate.net/publication/382457706 > ]
Vimal, R. L. P. (2025a). Towards a Holistic Paradigm: Inseparable-Complementary-Reflective Dual-Aspect Monism and Dvi-Pakṣādvaita Vedānta can bridge Science and Spirituality (Volume 4: Challenges and Resolutions).Vision Research Institute: Living Vision and Consciousness Research, 17(1), 1-499. (Vimal, 2025a). Avialable : <https://groups.google.com/g/sboc-forum/c/847hqhHLdQg/m/uySeZHFLAgAJ>.
Vimal, R. L. P. (2025b). Towards a Holistic Paradigm: Inseparable-Complementary-Reflective Dual-Aspect Monism and Dvi-Pakṣādvaita Vedānta can bridge Science and Spirituality (Volume 5: Jñāna Yoga and Cosmology). Vision Research Institute: Living Vision and Consciousness Research, 17(7), 1-457. (Vimal, 2025b). Avialable : <https://groups.google.com/g/sboc-forum/c/TG8kVmRF8Vs/m/KlyDkKODEQAJ>
-------------------------------------------------- --------
RāmLakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.
Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal
<rlpvimal@yahoo.co.in>Dear Everyone,We are entering the second round of discussions.
Responding to Detailed Critiques of the Dual-Aspect State Hypothesis in the
DPV~ICRDAM Framework
Responding to Detailed Critiques of the Dual-Aspect State Hypothesis in the DPV~ICRDAM Framework
1. Abstract
This paper addresses comprehensive feedback from Pūrvapakṣin-1 concerning the Dual-Aspect State (DAS) hypothesis, which forms the bedrock of the DPV~ICRDAM (spirituality-based Dvi-Pakṣādvaita Vedānta ~ (equivalent to) science-based Inseparable-Complementary-Reflective Dual-Aspect Monism) framework. The critique raises fundamental questions regarding the empirical validation and logical coherence of DAS in both elementary particles and the brain, as well as its claimed foundations in science and spirituality. This response systematically dissects each specific issue, synthesizing established scientific concepts, philosophical arguments, and contemplative insights to elucidate the DPV~ICRDAM perspective, affirming its capacity to integrate subjective experience and objective reality within a unified ontological framework.
2. Introduction
The DPV~ICRDAM framework proposes that every entity, ranging from fundamental particles to conscious beings to whole psychophysical universe (PPU), exists as a dual-aspect state (DAS) embodying inseparable, complementary, and reflective subjective (s) and non-subjective (ns) aspects (Vimal, 2023, 2024a, 2024b, 2025a, 2025b). This integrative approach seeks to bridge the chasm between scientific materialism and spiritual traditions. The critical feedback provided by Pūrvapakṣin-1 offers a valuable opportunity to elaborate upon the nuances of the DAS hypothesis and clarify its theoretical and empirical underpinnings. The following sections provide a structured response to each of the fourteen specific issues raised, reinforcing the conceptual robustness and explanatory power of DPV~ICRDAM.
3. List of Issues Raised
The critical feedback systematically challenged the DPV~ICRDAM framework, focusing on the empirical and logical foundations of its core hypothesis, the Dual-Aspect State (DAS). The specific issues can be summarized as follows:
· Overall Critique: The assertion that DAS and the entire DPV~ICRDAM framework represent an unproven, logically invalid, and dogmatic personal belief system, lacking empirical validation from science, spirituality, or philosophical metaphysics.
· Methodological Concern: The contention that it is premature to discuss bridging science and spirituality until DAS is empirically and logically proven, and that the ongoing discussion across new threads breaks continuity.
The fourteen specific issues that require clarification are:
1. Issue 1: Empirical Evidence for DAS in Elementary Particles. The critique questions the empirical proof for a subjective aspect (protoconsciousness, protoC) in electrons/photons and whether its changes commensurately with non-subjective alterations.
2. Issue 2: DAS in the Brain from fMRI Studies. The argument that a 1:1 correlation observed in fMRI studies does not prove DAS in the brain, citing an inherent mismatch between the public, quantifiable nature of the brain and the private, non-quantifiable nature of subjective experiences.
3. Issue 3: Logical Incompatibility of Non-subjective (ns) and Subjective (s) Aspects. The assertion that ns and s aspects cannot be complementary or co-exist in a DAS due to their fundamentally different inherent properties (e.g., non-subjective vs. subjective, public vs. private).
4. Issue 4: Comprehensive Lack of Empirical Evidence and Logical Consistency. A concluding point that there is no empirical evidence for DAS in particles or the brain, and that the assumption of DAS is logically untenable.
5. Issue 5: Quantum Mechanics, Observer's Role, and DAS-DAS Interactions. The claim that the observer's role in Quantum Mechanics (QM) does not prove DAS, and that DAS-DAS interactions are infeasible due to the private nature of the subjective aspect and a perceived lack of observed s-s interactions between brains.
6. Issue 6: Neuroscientific Correlates and DAS in the Brain. The reiteration that strong correlations between the brain's non-subjective structure (Neural Correlates of Consciousness - NCC) and subjective experiences do not prove DAS in the brain, emphasizing the property mismatch.
7. Issue 7: Critique of Integrated Information Theory (IIT) as Support for DAS. This issue identifies three specific "mistakes" in interpreting IIT as evidence for DAS:
o Mistake 1: Misconstruing "information" in IIT as "consciousness" or "experience."
o Mistake 2: Assuming an inseparability of information and entities, arguing that laws of physics remain invariant regardless of entity changes.
o Mistake 3: Rejecting the concept of "protoconsciousness," stating that consciousness is always "ever manifested awakened" and filters down from a Cosmic Consciousness.
8. Issue 8: Nirvikalpa Samādhi as Evidence for DAS. The argument that Nirvikalpa Samādhi signifies union with Cosmic Consciousness (CC) and does not infer DAS or the inseparability of subjective consciousness and non-subjective matter/energy.
9. Issue 9: Upaniṣadic Realizations as Evidence for DAS. The assertion that Upaniṣadic statements like "Ahaṁ brahmāsmi" imply the sole ontological reality of Cosmic Consciousness/Brahman, with no inference for DAS involving non-subjective matter/energy.
10. Issue 10: Kashmir Śaivism as Evidence for DAS. The claim that Kashmir Śaivism does not specifically state DAS for the brain or a stone, and that the concept of a "stone having DAS" contradicts the nature of Shiva's infinite powers.
11. Issue 11: Neo-Vedantic Realizations as Evidence for DAS. The argument that Neo-Vedantists like Ramana Maharshi and Sri Aurobindo likely accepted an immortal conscious soul, reincarnation, and Karmic law, views considered incompatible with DAS.
12. Issue 12: Spinoza's Dual-Aspect Monism as Support for DAS. The contention that thinking (subjective) and objects (non-subjective) cannot co-exist in the same state without empirical evidence for their DAS co-existence.
13. Issue 13: Strawson's Realistic Monism as Support for DAS. The assertion that Strawson's views face the same limitations as Spinoza's regarding the co-existence of object and proto-experience.
14. Issue 14: DPV~ICRDAM Framework's Reflective Symmetry. The critique that the framework's "reflective symmetry" between s and ns aspects is merely functional symmetry, not ontological symmetry, and that ontological inseparability leading to DAS is unsupported by evidence or logical consistency.
4. Analysis of Criticisms
This section systematically addresses each of the critiques, elaborating on the DPV~ICRDAM perspective and providing counter-arguments.
1. General Critique: DAS as a Personal Dogmatic Belief & Lack of Evidence (Issues 1, 2, 4)
The overarching critique asserts that DAS and the entire DPV~ICRDAM framework constitute an unproven, logically invalid, and dogmatic personal belief system due to a perceived absence of direct empirical evidence from science, spirituality, or philosophical metaphysics. It also notes that the ongoing discussion across new threads breaks continuity.
The DPV~ICRDAM framework is presented as a testable hypothesis and a coherent ontological model, not a dogma. While direct, conventional empirical measurement of the subjective aspect in non-living systems remains beyond current scientific tools, DPV~ICRDAM builds its case on converging lines of evidence and logical inferences derived from diverse fields, including:
· Theoretical Physics: Interpretations of quantum mechanics (QM) that highlight observer participation and interdependence (Fuchs, 2010; Rovelli, 1996) provide a conceptual space for the inherent relatedness of subjective and non-subjective aspects, even if QM itself doesn't explicitly name "DAS".
· Neuroscience: The robust empirical findings of neural correlates of consciousness (NCC) demonstrate a tight, immediate, and reproducible mapping between non-subjective brain states and subjective experiences (Koch, 2004). DPV~ICRDAM interprets this not as a correlation between two separate substances, but as the manifestation of two inseparable aspects of a single underlying reality.
· Philosophical Traditions: Dual-aspect monism (Spinoza, 1677; Strawson, 2006; Atmanspacher & Rickles, 2022) provides a robust conceptual framework where mental and physical attributes are two aspects of a single substance, inherently addressing the perceived logical incompatibility.
· Contemplative Phenomenology: Direct, first-person experiences reported in advanced meditative states (samādhi) describe a unity of subjective and objective reality, dissolving conventional distinctions (Aurobindo, 1999; Maharshi, 2006).
Therefore, the claim of "no evidence" is challenged by a multi-faceted approach to evidence and inference that extends beyond what conventional empiricism alone might capture. The continuity of discussion is also maintained by systematically addressing all points raised across communications. Furthermore, the DPV~ICRDAM framework explains over 232 Brahma Sutras in 17 volumes (each 450-800 pages) covering over 40 Vedantic and non-Vedantic frameworks, first time over 6000 years, demonstrating a comprehensive theoretical foundation. In other words, it also bridges over 40 Vedantic and non-Vedantic frameworks, including Neo-Sāṅkhya (Vimal, 2024b, Volume 3.2, Section 78), Neo-Vaiśeṣika (Vimal, 2024b, Volume 3.2, Section 79), Neo-Buddhism (Vimal, 2024b, Volume 3.2, Section 85-86), Neo-Jainism (Vimal, 2024b, Volume 3.2, Section 79), Neo-Pāśupata (Vimal, 2024b, Volume 3.2, Section 89), Neo-Bhāgavata-Pāñcarātra (Vimal, 2024b, Section 91), Neo-<Gauḍīya Vedānta ≡ (identical) Achintya-Bheda-Abheda Vedānta (GV≡ABAV)>, Neo-materialism, and Neo-Idealism (Vimal, 2024b3.Section 92).
2. Dual-Aspect State in Elementary Particles (Electron/Photon) (Issue 1)
The critique challenges the empirical proof of a subjective aspect (consciousness) in electrons/photons and a commensurate change in it with non-subjective alterations.
DPV~ICRDAM posits that elementary particles possess a proto-conscious (protoC) or intrinsic subjective aspect (s-aspect), which is an inherent quality, not a separately measurable entity with current tools (Vimal, 2023, 2025a). This aligns with panpsychist perspectives that attribute primitive forms of experience to fundamental physical entities (Goff, 2017; Strawson, 2006). The "commensurate change" is a definitional property of the DAS: any change in the non-subjective (ns) aspect is ontologically reflected in the s-aspect, and vice versa, as they are inseparable and complementary aspects of the same state (Vimal, 2023, 2025a). This is a theoretical assertion about the intrinsic nature of reality, inferred from the difficulty of explaining consciousness from purely physical properties and the need for a unified theory. The "feeling of attraction and repulsion between opposite and similar charges" and the "function of an entity" can indeed be considered as empirical evidence for protoconsciousness (Vimal, 2025a), providing an interpretation beyond mere physical interaction (Empedocles).
3. Dual-Aspect State in the Brain and Inherent Property Mismatch (Issue 6)
The critique argues that the brain, being public, quantifiable, and discrete, cannot harbor private, non-quantifiable, holistic subjective experiences in a DAS. The 1:1 correlation in fMRI is acknowledged but not as proof of DAS; an analogy of a projector showing a rose image is used to illustrate correlation without DAS.
DPV~ICRDAM proposes that the "private" and "public" domains are two complementary ways of describing the same underlying dual-aspect state of the brain (Vimal, 2023, 2025a). The subjective experience (s-aspect) is the intrinsic, qualitative feel, while the neural activity (ns-aspect) is the extrinsic, structural manifestation. The "holistic" nature of experience versus the "discrete" nature of neural activity does not preclude DAS; rather, it highlights the challenge of describing a unified, intrinsic reality using only extrinsic, discrete measurements. The correlation observed in NCC (Koch, 2004) is precisely the empirical signature of this inseparability and reflection in living systems. The projector analogy, while useful for demonstrating correlation without identity, relies on a classical, substance-dualistic framework including Sankhya where the projector, image, and rose are distinct entities. In contrast, DAS posits an ontological unity where the subjective and non-subjective are fundamentally unified aspects of the same state of the brain itself (Vimal, 2023, 2025a). The "emergent reality" of the image on the screen in the analogy is indeed an emergent property; DPV~ICRDAM similarly views manifested consciousness as an emergent property from the interaction of the brain's complex DAS elements through DAS-DAS interactions. In DPV~ICRDAM, the observed 1:1 correlation between conscious subjective experiences (CSE) and neural-physical activities/basis (NPA/NPB) is interpreted as evidence of inseparability between s and ns aspects. Given that other metaphysical frameworks face significant challenges, and DPV~ICRDAM satisfies 32 criteria for framework selection (Vimal, 2023a)[i] and numerous fMRI/EEG reports consistently show this correlation without separability, inseparability remains the most valid interpretation. In other words, the DAS of an observer with CSE as s-aspect and NPA/NPB as ns-aspect is manifested state. Therefore, there is no category mistake and the 1-1 correlation is interpreted as the inseparability between s and ns aspects. Since (i) all other metaphysics have serious problems, (ii) only DPV~ICRDAM 32 criteria of framework selection (Vimal, 2023a) hence ranks the highest, and (iii) none of the 100s of fMRI/EEG report show separability, there is no other valid interpretation of 1-1 correlation except inseparability between s and ns aspects of a DAS of an observer.
4. Logical Incompatibility of ns and s & Complementarity (Issue 3)
The critique states that non-subjective (ns) and subjective (s) aspects cannot be complementary because they have fundamentally different inherent properties (non-subjective vs. subjective, public vs. private, quantifiable vs. non-quantifiable, outbound vs. inbound). It also argues that true complementary aspects (like wave-particle duality) exist under different conditions, unlike the co-manifestation in ICRDAM.
In DPV~ICRDAM, "complementarity" refers to a relationship of mutual dependence and mutual necessity for a complete description of a single underlying reality, rather than requiring identical properties or manifesting under different conditions (Vimal, 2023, 2025a). The very "different inherent properties" are precisely why both aspects are needed to fully understand the DAS. As Atmanspacher and Rickles (2022) discuss, complementarity in a broader sense can apply to non-commuting properties of a single system, where knowledge of one aspect precludes simultaneous precise knowledge of the other, yet both are essential for the system's full description. DPV~ICRDAM asserts that the ns and s aspects co-manifest simultaneously within every DAS, reflecting each other in a non-causal ontological relation (Vimal, 2023, 2025a). This is a core feature of its dual-aspect monism, differing from wave-particle duality, which describes different modes of observation of a quantum entity. While ns and s aspects appear distinct in conventional, mind-dependent Saguna Brahman (SB) reality, they are both integral parts of cosmic SB. At the fundamental ultimate Nirguna Brahman (NB) reality, they are both considered NB and possess identical Elemental Intrinsic Information (EII) patterns, signifying their fundamental unity. In other words, they appear different in conventional mind-dependent Saguna Brahman (SB) reality, but they are parts of cosmic SB; so both are Brahman. However, in fundamental ultimate NB reality, they are all NB (Nirguna Brahman); so they are the same EII patterns because EII is identical in both s and ns aspects.
5. Integrated Information Theory (IIT) and Proto-Consciousness (Issue 7)
The critique identifies three "gross mistakes" in interpreting IIT as evidence for DAS: 1) misconstruing information as consciousness; 2) assuming inseparability of information and entities; and 3) the concept of protoconsciousness as a misnomer, arguing consciousness is always "ever manifested awakened" from a cosmic source.
· 1. Information as Consciousness: IIT (Tononi, 2008) does not merely equate information with consciousness; rather, it posits that consciousness is intrinsic, integrated information (Φ) (Vimal, 2022). The measure Φ quantifies the cause-effect power intrinsic to a system, which is argued to be isomorphic to its experience (Tononi, 2008). This is a precise theoretical definition within IIT, distinguishing it from mere data or communication, as in the laptop/EM wave analogy. The "integrated information" is about the structure of phenomenal experience itself. The statement that "information is dual-aspect entity; (proto)consciousness is s-aspect of information" clarifies that within DPV~ICRDAM, information itself is seen as having dual aspects, where proto-consciousness is its subjective aspect.
· 2. Inseparability of Information and Entities: In IIT and DPV~ICRDAM, the integrated information (Φ) is intrinsic to the state of the entity or system (Vimal, 2022, 2023, 2025a). While universal laws like gravitation are abstract patterns that persist, the specific integrated information of a particular entity's state would indeed change or cease with the entity's dissolution or change in state. The inseparability refers to the intrinsic, moment-to-moment experience of that specific configuration, not universal laws. In DPV~ICRDAM, information is also considered an entity, and its subjective and non-subjective aspects are inseparable, complementary, and reflective.
· 3. Protoconsciousness: DPV~ICRDAM's concept of proto-consciousness is that the potentiality of consciousness is a fundamental intrinsic property of ultimate NB reality. It exists in rudimentary, unmanifested forms even in inert entities as proto-consciousness (Vimal, 2023, 2025a). It is not merely a filtered manifestation from a "Cosmic Consciousness" (CC) but an inherent aspect of every DAS. While the manifestation of complex, "awakened" consciousness requires sophisticated neural structures, the underlying proto-consciousness is omnipresent, providing an ontological basis for the emergence of full consciousness (Vimal, 2025a). This differs from views (such as the problematioc consciousness-first view) where consciousness only flows from a higher, distinct cosmic source (such as non-interactive dualistic Sankhya that 14 unresolvable problems). In the DPV~ICRDAM framework, protoconsciousness can arise from a bottom-up panprotopsychism approach, or in a top-down dual-aspect cosmopsychism, where Cosmic Consciousness (CC) individuates or decombines into Individual Consciousness (IC) or ADS in living entities, and into individual protoconsciousness in non-living entities. In other words, protoconsciousness is used usually in a bottom-up panprotopsychism approach. In top-down dual-aspect cosmopsychism, CC (cosmic consciousness) is individuated/decombined in IC (individual consciousness) or ADS in living entities and individual protoconsciousness in non-living entities.
6. Samādhi-State Evidence and Inseparability (Issues 8, 9, 10, 11)
The critique largely dismisses samādhi experiences (Nirvikalpa Samādhi), Upaniṣadic realizations ("Ahaṁ brahmāsmi"), Kashmir Śaivism, and Neo-Vedantic realizations (Ramana, Aurobindo) as evidence for DAS. Arguments include: NS implies union with CC, not s-ns inseparability; Upaniṣads assert ontological reality of CC only, not ns matter; Kashmir Śaivism does not specifically state DAS for brain/stone (and breaking a stone would imply breaking Shiva); and Ramana/Aurobindo accepted an immortal soul, reincarnation, and karma, which are incompatible with DAS. The common thread is that these traditions accept a conscious soul, eliminating the need for DAS in the brain.
DPV~ICRDAM interprets these spiritual insights as supportive of DAS by emphasizing the non-dual nature of ultimate reality, where subject and object are fundamentally unified.
· Nirvikalpa Samādhi: The dissolution of observer-observed distinction in Nirvikalpa Samādhi (NS) strongly points to the inseparability of subjective and objective aspects, as they merge into a unified experience (Vimal, 2025a). This critique, based on Sankhya or Vedanta's Saguna Brahman, misinterprets the experience; in DPV~ICRDAM, it is a unification of subject and object, where the object is represented in the brain’s neural-physical activities/basis (NPA/NPB) as the ns-aspect. Whatever yogis experience in Nirvikalpa Samādhi State (NSS) is called CC or pureC, but in neuroscience, it is a conscious subjective experience (CSE) with its own specific and inseparable NPA/NPB. Therefore, it is valid to interpret that the s and ns aspects of the NSS of a yogi are inseparably unified, supporting the doctrine of inseparability.
· Upaniṣadic Realizations: "Ahaṁ brahmāsmi" (I am Brahman) and "Sarvaṁ khalvidaṁ brahma" (All this is Brahman) point to the ultimate identity of the individual self (subjective) with the entire universe (objective) and with the ultimate reality (Brahman) (Maitrī Upaniṣad VI.28). This realization of fundamental unity and inseparability between self, world, and ultimate reality is precisely what the DAS hypothesis aims to articulate (Vimal, 2025a). The critic's misunderstanding stems from applying a Sankhya viewpoint; in DPV~ICRDAM, both Nirguna Brahman (NB) and Saguna Brahman (SB) include both aspects at NSS, experienced as unified, meaning their Elemental Intrinsic Information (EII) is identical. The s and ns aspects are simply different points of view (1st person perspective and 3rd person perspective) of the same EII. NSS is considered one of the best DASs where yogis can experience both perspectives as identical, confirming both are Brahman.
· Kashmir Śaivism (KS): KS emphasizes that the world is a reflection of Śiva-consciousness, meaning no object (ns) exists without Cit (s-aspect) reflecting in it (Abhinavagupta, Tantrāloka). The world is seen as conscious and participatory, interpenetrating with the experiencer (Rastogi, 1996). The "stone breaking Shiva" argument misinterprets the nature of the "s-aspect" in non-living entities; it is not a vulnerable, separate "Shiva" that breaks but an intrinsic, fundamental quality of the unified reality that manifests as the stone's DAS. The subjective aspect is not a separable entity but an inherent characteristic of the non-subjective. In Kashmir Śaivism, Shiva and Shakti are explicitly inseparable, a concept exemplified by the ArdhNariEshwar system.
· Neo-Vedanta (Ramana, Aurobindo): Their reports of "integral awareness where matter and consciousness are one" directly support the inseparability and complementarity of s and ns aspects, suggesting a proto-subjective depth even in matter, perceptible in enlightened states (Aurobindo, 1999; Maharshi, 2006; Vimal, 2025a). While these traditions typically accept an immortal soul, reincarnation, and karma, DPV~ICRDAM provides a framework where these concepts can be viewed as dynamics within the overarching dual-aspect reality, rather than a contradiction to DAS itself (Vimal, 2025a). The "conscious soul" can be understood as the s-aspect of a higher-level, more complex DAS. Notably, these spiritual masters have recognized that even inert entities like a stone possess a dual-aspect Saguna Brahman (SB) and hence a DAS, as documented in their works (e.g., Maharaj, 2017).
7. Philosophical Support & Logical Tenability (Issues 12, 13, 14)
The critique suggests that philosophical positions like Spinoza's Dual-Aspect Monism and Strawson's Realistic Monism also fail due to the inherent incompatibility of thinking/experiential and non-subjective attributes. Furthermore, it distinguishes "functional symmetry" (where ns is necessary for s and vice versa) from "ontological symmetry" (co-arising and co-existence in the same state), arguing DPV~ICRDAM only achieves functional symmetry and confuses the two.
· Spinoza and Strawson: These philosophers explicitly articulate frameworks where mental (thinking/experiential) and physical (extension/physical properties) are attributes of a single underlying substance or reality (Spinoza, 1677; Strawson, 2006). This is precisely the conceptual foundation for DPV~ICRDAM's DAS, directly addressing the "logical inconsistency" by proposing a unified ground for these seemingly disparate properties. Their arguments show the necessity of a dual-aspect ontology to avoid substance dualism's interaction problem. There are hundreds of empirical pieces of evidence, including reports from Nirvikalpa Samādhi states, that consistently show the inseparability of these aspects, rather than their distinctness.
· Functional vs. Ontological Symmetry: DPV~ICRDAM posits ontological inseparability as foundational for the DAS, meaning that the s-aspect and ns-aspect co-arise and co-exist as intrinsic properties of the same state of an entity (Vimal, 2023, 2025a). "Functional symmetry" (the observable tight correlation and interdependence) is seen as a manifestation or empirical consequence of this deeper ontological inseparability (Vimal, 2023). Therefore, DPV~ICRDAM explicitly claims and supports ontological inseparability, with functional symmetry as its observable correlate in conscious systems. While conscious manifestation (functional inseparability in the usual sense) is specific to living entities, the underlying DAS and proto-consciousness are universal, providing a basis even for inert matter (Vimal, 2025a). The reflective symmetry in DPV~ICRDAM is indeed valid functionally, ontologically, and epistemologically. It supports DAS and DPV~ICRDAM, particularly when understood through a deeper engagement, such as the 127 steps of Jñāna yoga or the mathematical formulation presented in Vimal (2025a, Section 1). This establishes a 1-1 Inseparable and Complementary Reflective Dual-Aspect Monistic Correspondence (1-1_ICRDMC) between the inseparable and complementary subjective (s) and non-subjective (ns) aspects of an entity's dual-aspect state.
5. Synthesis with Previous Response to Support DPV~ICRDAM
The synthesis of arguments from the previous response with the clarifications above further strengthens the DPV~ICRDAM framework. The framework's ability to interpret quantum phenomena, such as observer dependence (Fuchs, 2010; Rovelli, 1996), suggests a fundamental entanglement of subjective and non-subjective elements at the most basic levels of reality, aligning with the reflective and inseparable nature of DAS. Neuroscience, through the study of Neural Correlates of Consciousness (NCC) (Koch, 2004), provides empirical evidence for the tight coupling between subjective experience and physical brain states, which DPV~ICRDAM interprets as the empirical signature of the DAS in living systems.
The inclusion of Integrated Information Theory (IIT) (Tononi, 2008) in the DPV~ICRDAM context (Vimal, 2022) offers a quantitative measure (Φ) for consciousness that is intrinsically linked to the structural and functional properties of a system. This theoretical alignment provides a conceptual bridge between information-theoretic properties and subjective experience, supporting the pervasive dual-aspect nature, even for minimal systems (Tononi, 2008).
Furthermore, the DPV~ICRDAM framework provides a unique lens through which to understand complex states like vegetative states. By proposing that these involve a dual-aspect state with "vegetative protoconsciousness" (s-aspect) and compromised neural activity (ns-aspect) (Vimal, 2025a), the framework offers a coherent explanation for findings of covert consciousness in otherwise unresponsive patients (Monti et al., 2010; Owen et al., 2006). This demonstrates its capacity to integrate cutting-edge empirical research with a comprehensive ontological model.
Finally, the philosophical arguments, including Spinoza's Dual-Aspect Monism (Spinoza, 1677) and Strawson's Realistic Monism (Strawson, 2006), provide robust conceptual support for the notion that physical and experiential properties are two inseparable aspects of a single reality. The interpretation of electromagnetic forces as proto-consciousness (Empedocles; Vimal, 2025a) further illustrates the framework's broad applicability to fundamental physics.
6. Conclusion
The DPV~ICRDAM framework, grounded in the Dual-Aspect State (DAS) hypothesis, proposes a unified ontology that integrates subjective experience and objective reality. While the critical feedback rightly demands rigorous empirical and logical scrutiny, this response has articulated how DPV~ICRDAM addresses these challenges by drawing upon multifaceted lines of evidence and reasoned arguments. The framework interprets current scientific observations (e.g., QM, NCC, IIT) as consistent with, and often supportive of, a dual-aspect reality, even when direct measurement of all aspects remains a frontier. Philosophical traditions provide robust conceptual grounding, and contemplative experiences offer profound phenomenological insights into the unity of existence.
DPV~ICRDAM is not presented as a dogmatic belief but as a developing scientific and philosophical hypothesis that seeks to provide a coherent, comprehensive, and potentially verifiable understanding of consciousness and its relation to the non-subjective world. By proposing that every entity is a DAS with inseparable, complementary, and reflective subjective and non-subjective aspects, DPV~ICRDAM offers a powerful paradigm for bridging disparate fields of knowledge and fostering a more integrated understanding of reality.
Note: See also Appendix A.
8. Appendix A
List of Issues Raised
Below is the list of issues raised in the feedback.
The critical feedback systematically challenged the DPV~ICRDAM framework, focusing on the empirical and logical foundations of its core hypothesis, the Dual-Aspect State (DAS). The specific issues can be summarized as follows:
- Overall Critique: The assertion that DAS and the entire DPV~ICRDAM framework represent an unproven, logically invalid, and dogmatic personal belief system, lacking empirical validation from science, spirituality, or philosophical metaphysics. [This is not true as explained below and DPV~ICRDAM explains, so far, 232 Brahma Sutras.]
- Methodological Concern: It is premature to discuss bridging science and spirituality until DAS is empirically and logically proven. [This is also untenable concern as explained below; in addition, over 40 Vedantic and non-Vedantic framework are bridged through 232 Brahma Sutras. Some of the classical ancient frameworks (such as Sankhya) are rejected by these sutras, but they are re-interpreted through DPV~ICRDAM; for example, Neo-Sāṅkhya (Vimal, 2024b.Volume 3.2, Section 78), Neo-Vaiśeṣika (Vimal, 2024b, Volume 3.2, Section 79), Neo-Buddhism (Vimal, 2024b, Volume 3.2, Section 85-86), Neo-Janism (Vimal, 2024b, Volume 3.2, Section 79), Neo-Pāśupata (Vimal, 2024b, Volume 3.2, Section 89), Neo-Bhāgavata-Pāñcarātra (Vimal, 2024b3.Section 91), Neo-<Gauḍīya Vedānta ≡ (identical) Achintya-Bheda-Abheda Vedānta (GV≡ABAV)>, Neo-materialism, and Neo-Idealism (Vimal, 2024b3.Section 92).]
The fourteen specific issues that require clarification are:
1. Issue 1: Empirical Evidence for DAS in Elementary Particles. The lack of empirical proof for a subjective aspect (protoconsciousness, protoC) in electrons/photons and a measurable commensurate change in it when the non-subjective aspect changes. [This is not true because, for example, feeling of attraction and repulsion between opposite and same charges, and function of an entity can be considered as evidence for protoC a s-aspect.]
2. Issue 2: DAS in the Brain from fMRI Studies. The argument that a 1:1 correlation observed in fMRI studies does not prove DAS in the brain, citing the inherent mismatch between the public, quantifiable nature of the brain and the private, non-quantifiable nature of subjective experiences. [It depends on a metaphysics. In Sankhya, we can argue for s and ns separable and also correlation. In DPV~ICRDAM, 1-1 correlation is considered inseparability.\
3. Issue 3: Logical Incompatibility of Non-subjective (ns) and Subjective (s) Aspects. The assertion that ns and s aspects cannot be complementary or co-exist in a DAS due to their fundamentally different inherent properties (e.g., non-subjective vs. subjective, public vs. private). [They appear different in conventional mind-dependent Saguna Brahman (SB) reality, but they parts of cosmic SB; so both are Brhaman; however, fundamental ultimate NB reality they are all NB (Nirguna Brahman); so they are the same EII patterns because EII is identical in both s and ns aspects].
4. Issue 4: Comprehensive Lack of Empirical Evidence and Logical Consistency. A concluding point that there is no empirical evidence for DAS in particles or the brain, and that the assumption of DAS is logically untenable. [Not true! See above Issue 1 argument.]
5. Issue 5: Quantum Mechanics, Observer's Role, and DAS-DAS Interactions. The claim that the observer's role in QM does not prove DAS, and that DAS-DAS interactions are infeasible due to the private nature of the subjective aspect and lack of observed s-s interactions between brains. [Not true! The view s-s interaction is not from DPV~ICRDAM because you have separated s from ns; this critique would be valid in Sankhya and dualism, where s and ns are assumed to be separable. In DPV~ICRDAM, only DAS-DAS interactions are allowed. Therefore, this critique is untenable. Quantum Mechanics, Observer's Role, and DAS-DAS Interactions are fully valid and explained in detail before and alse see below.]
6. Issue 6: Neuroscientific Correlates and DAS in the Brain. Reiterating that strong correlations between brain's non-subjective structure (Neural Correlates of Consciousness - NCC) and subjective subjective experiences do not prove DAS in the brain, again emphasizing the property mismatch. [Both CSE and NPA/NPB are manifested; therefore, 1-1 correlation is interpreted that s and ns are inseparable. Since (i) all other metaphysics have serious problems, (ii) only DPV~ICRDAM satisfies 32 criteria of framework selection (Vimal, 2023a)[ii] hence ranks the highest, and (iii) none of the 100s of fMRI/EEG report show separability, there is no other valid interpretation of 1-1 correlation except inseparability between s and ns aspects of a DAS of an observer.]
7. Issue 7: Critique of Integrated Information Theory (IIT) as Support for DAS.
o Mistake 1: Misconstruing "information" in IIT as "consciousness" or "experience." [It is misleading statement: Information is dual-aspect entity; (proto)consciousness is s-aspect of information.]
o Mistake 2: Assuming an inseparability of information and entities, arguing that laws of physics remain invariant regardless of entity changes. [It is misleading statement: the s and ns aspects of a DAS of entity are inseparable, complementary, and reflective; information is also coisdered as entity in DPV~ICRDAM.]
o Mistake 3: Rejecting the concept of "protoconsciousness," stating that consciousness is always "ever manifested awakened" and filters down from a Cosmic Consciousness. [It is misleading statement: protoconsciousness is usually in bottom-up panprotopsychism approach. In top-down dual-aspect cosmopsychism, CC (cosmic consciousness) is individuated/decombined in IC (individual consciousness) or ADS in living entities and individual protoconsciousness in non-living entity.
8. Issue 8: Nirvikalpa Samādhi as Evidence for DAS. The argument that Nirvikalpa Samādhi signifies union with Cosmic Consciousness (CC) and does not infer DAS or the inseparability of subjective consciousness and non-subjective matter/energy. [This critique is based on Sankhya or Vedanta’s Saguna Brahman. However, in DPV~ICRDAM, it is unification of subject and object; object is represented in brain’s neural-physical activities/basis (NPA/NPB) as ns-aspect. Whatever yogis experience in Nirvikalpa Samadhi state (NSS) is called CC or pureC. However, in neuroscience, it is a conscious subjective experience (CSE) like any other CSE and has its own specific NPA/NPB without fail. Therefore, it is valid to interpret that s and ns aspects of the NSS of a yogi inseparably unified, which supports the doctrine of inseparability.]
9. Issue 9: Upaniṣadic Realizations as Evidence for DAS. The assertion that Upaniṣadic statements like "Ahaṁ brahmāsmi" imply the sole ontological reality of Cosmic Consciousness/Brahman, with no inference for DAS involving non-subjective matter/energy. [The critic has a serious misunderstanding. As explained in Issue 8, "Ahaṁ brahmāsmi" arose because of NSS. Both NB and SB include both aspects at NSS; both aspects are experienced as unified, which means EII is identical in both, as realized during NSS. The s and ns are simply looking the same EII from two different POV (point of view): 1pp (1st person perspective) and 3pp (3rd person perspective). NSS is one of the best DASs where yogis are able to experience both perspectives as identical. Both are Brahman. The critic is unfairly and superficially applying Sankhya’s POV into DPV~ICRDAM. He needs to delve deeper to understand or attain NSS. The author (Siddhāntin) has attained the samadhi state through 127 steps of Jñāna yoga, as elaborated in Vimal (2025b, Section 3), and found that NB is indeed the source, and DPV~ICRDAM is a valid framework. It is important to understand that Jñāna yoga is based on 127 steps and different from other yogic methods such as Raja yoga, Bhakti yoga, Karma yoga, and Premyoga (as in GV), where CSE at NSS is mandatory.]
10. Issue 10: Kashmir Śaivism as Evidence for DAS. The claim that Kashmir Śaivism does not specifically state DAS for the brain or a stone, and that the concept of a "stone having DAS" contradicts the nature of Shiva's infinite powers. [Not true. In Kashmir Śaivism, Shiva and Sakti are inseparable; the ArdhNariEshwar system arose from this inseparability.]
11. Issue 11: Neo-Vedantic Realizations as Evidence for DAS. The argument that Neo-Vedantists like Ramana Maharshi and Sri Aurobindo likely accepted an immortal conscious soul, reincarnation, and Karmic law, views considered incompatible with DAS. [Not true. They have realized even stone is dual-aspect SB and hence its state is DAS. Please read carefully their work including (Maharaj, 2017).]
12. Issue 12: Spinoza's Dual-Aspect Monism as Support for DAS. The contention that thinking (subjective) and objects (non-subjective) cannot co-exist in the same state without empirical evidence for their DAS co-existence. [There are hundreds of pieces of empirical evidence, but none are able to separate the aspects of s and ns, including NSS reports.]
13. Issue 13: Strawson's Realistic Monism as Support for DAS. The assertion that Strawson's views face the same limitations as Spinoza's regarding the co-existence of object and proto-experience. [This is addressed in Issue 12]
14. Issue 14: DPV~ICRDAM Framework's Reflective Symmetry. The critique that the framework's "reflective symmetry" between s and ns aspects is merely functional symmetry, not ontological symmetry, and that ontological inseparability leading to DAS is unsupported by evidence or logical consistency. [No. The reflective symmetry is valid functionally, ontologically, and epistemologically and supports DAS and DPV~ICRDAM if critic delves deeply and use 127 steps of Jñāna yoga and attain enough background to understand mathematical formulation of DPV~ICRDAM in Section 1 of (Vimal, 2025a). In other words, the <1-1 Inseparable and Complementary Reflective Dual-Aspect Monistic Correspondence (1-1_ICRDMC)> is the relationship between inseparable and complementary subjective (s) and non-subjective (ns) aspects of a dual-aspect state of an entity for DPV~ICRDAM.[iii]]
(1) Does the framework have evidence from quantitative objective (observed and measured) and (or) qualitative subjective (observed but not measured) empirical data (not influenced by opinion or bias)?
(2) Is the framework “Accurate – empirically adequate with experimentation and observation”?
(3) Is the framework “Consistent – internally consistent, but also externally consistent with other theories”?
(4) Does the framework have a “Broad Scope – a theory's consequences should extend beyond that which it was initially designed to explain”?
(5) Is the framework “Fruitful – a theory should disclose new phenomena or new relationships among phenomena”?
(6) Is the framework “Simple – the simplest explanation, principally similar to Occam's razor”?
(7) Is the framework consistent with the Model selection criterion (MSC) from Akaike information statistics (AIS)?
(8) How many authentic irresolvable problems are in the framework?
(9) Generality as an explanatory power: Do the meta-theory or theory assumptions work everywhere in all situations?
(10) Consistency: Are the assumptions consistent with what we already know?
(11) Necessity: Do the new assumptions resolve a clearly established paradox in the old view?
(12) Parsimony: Are the new assumptions the minimum required to allow theories based on them to explain more phenomena more accurately, with less overall work?
(13) Formality: Can the meta-theory be formalized in mathematical terms?
(14) Productivity: Do the new assumptions lead to successful theory?
(15) No-Go Theorem: Can the framework escape from No-Go theorems?
(16) What is the gut feeling or intuition about the framework?
(17) If survival of consciousness after death is valid, can the framework be extended to accommodate life after death?
(18) Does the framework have front-loading phenomenological (1st person perspective (1pp), subjective (s) aspect) insights into the experimental design (3rd person perspective (3pp), non-subjective (ns) aspect)?
(19) Does the framework have phenomenological (1pp, s-aspect) validation of neurobiological (3pp, ns-aspect) accounts?
(20) Does the framework provide joint analyses of 1P (1pp, s-aspect) and 3P (3pp, ns-aspect) data?
(21) Does the framework use physiological data to guide the investigation of subjective experience (SE)?
(22) Does the framework re-analyze the 1pp according to the 1pp-enriched 3pp analyses?
(23) Does the framework have the ability for mathematical and (or) cognitive modeling?
(24) Does the framework have syllogism-based logic?
(25) Does the framework have simple (and elegant) laws and testable hypotheses?
(26) Does the framework provide insight into the nature of consciousness as an explanatory power?
(27) Does the framework have ontological and epistemological simplicity?
(28) Does the framework have a mode of explanation through mechanistic and (or) unificationistic approaches?
(29) Does the framework use the causal mechanism, functional mechanism, or both for explanations? Can a framework be non-mechanistic and causal simultaneously without contradiction?
(30) What is the target of explanation: (a) quality of consciousness is what makes consciousness feel the way it does versus (b) quantity corresponds to what makes the system conscious rather than unconscious? Does the framework encompass both living and non-living systems?
(31) Does a framework satisfy the six constraints of pure consciousness (PC), which is the minimal phenomenal experience (MPE)?
(32) Is a framework able to bridge spirituality and science?
I briefly discuss them with clarification using an example of the ICRDAM framework and critically examine if it satisfies each of the 32 criteria.
[iii]
[10] There are 12 justifications for inseparability.[iii] The name should include 13 justifications, in addition to inseparability, and complementarity. We have listed 15 justifications for the best name for the relationship between s and ns aspects.
Here is a comprehensive name suggestion along with 15 justifications that incorporate inseparability, complementarity, conventional and ultimate realities and the unique aspects described by the 12 original justifications.
A suggested name for the relationship between s and ns aspects of a dual-aspect state of an entity for DPV~ICRDAM is as follows:
The <1-1 Inseparable and Complementary Reflective Dual-Aspect Monistic Correspondence (1-1_ICRDMC)> is the relationship between s and ns aspects of a dual-aspect state of an entity for DPV~ICRDAM.
15 Justifications for the Name
1. Inseparability (Justification 1): The relationship solves the hard problem of consciousness by ensuring inseparability between s and ns aspects of the same state of the same entity.
2. Complementarity (New Justification): s and ns aspects complement each other by providing distinct yet harmonious perspectives within a unified dual-aspect framework.
3. Monistic Parsimony (Justification 2): By preserving monism, the framework adheres to the principle of Occam’s Razor, enhancing scientific viability.
4. Primal Source (Justification 3): Both s and ns aspects originate from the primal dual-aspect substrate, such as the UIEF/UEIF (unified informational-energy/energetic-information field).
5. Stimulus Integration (Justification 4): Effective information transformation from the physical stimulus supports the inseparable link between the aspects.
6. Effective Integrated Information (EII) (Justification 5): Identical EII is reflected across both aspects, indicating inseparability.
7. Energy-Information Relationship (Justification 6): Effective energy likely corresponds identically in both aspects due to the energy-information relationship.
8. Reflective Correspondence (Justification 7): Any change in one aspect immediately and faithfully reflects in the other, demonstrating a 1:1 bidirectional relationship.
9. Empirical Evidence (Justification 8): There is no empirical evidence supporting the separability between s and ns aspects of the same state of the same entity.
10. Ecological Consistency (Justification 9): The inseparability aligns with principles observed in ecosystem ecology.
11. Resolution of Dualism Challenges (Justification 10): The relationship resolves the association problem of Cartesian and Sāṅkhya dualism by rejecting separability.
12. Empirical Dual-Source Data (Justification 11): Robust and reproducible subjective (1pp) and objective (3pp) data support inseparability.
13. Higher Scientific Viability (Justification 12): Dual-aspect monism with inseparable aspects aligns with the parsimony principle better than dualism-based frameworks.
14. 1-1_ICRDM Correspondence (1-1_ICRDMC) Category-Theoretic Formalism (New Justification): The formal definition using category theory and mathematical structures underscores the inseparability and complementarity between s and ns aspects in the same state.
15. A dual-aspect state (DAS), characterized by its inseparable and complementary subjective (s) and non-subjective (ns) aspects, is dynamic and evolves over time. The apparent duality between s and ns exists at the dualistic conventional level, which is mind-dependent realitiy (CMDR), rather than at the monistic ultimate level, which pertains to mind-independent reality (UMIR). In simpler terms, while s and ns aspects may appear separable and dualistic at the conventional level—manifesting as the distinction between subject and object, between s and ns aspects, or between first-person (1pp) and third-person perspectives (3pp)—they are fundamentally inseparable and complementary at the ultimate level.
For instance, at the conventional level, the Earth appears flat and the Sun appears to move across the sky from east to west (an earth-centric perspective), whereas at the ultimate level, the Sun is central and the planets orbit around it (a sun-centric view). This distinction clarifies why dualistic Sāṅkhya may seem valid at the conventional level (Vyoharik Satya), while DPV~ICRDAM holds true at the ultimate level (parmarthik Satya).[iii]
-------------------------------------------------- --------
RāmLakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.
Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal
<rlpvimal@yahoo.co.in>Third Round of Discussion: Responding to Detailed Critiques of the Dual-Aspect State Hypothesis in the DPV~ICRDAM Framework
1. Abstract
This paper addresses comprehensive feedback from Pūrvapakṣin-1 concerning the Dual-Aspect State (DAS) hypothesis, which forms the bedrock of the DPV~ICRDAM (spirituality-based Dvi-Pakṣādvaita Vedānta ~ (equivalent to) science-based Inseparable-Complementary-Reflective Dual-Aspect Monism) framework. The critique raises fundamental questions regarding the empirical validation and logical coherence of DAS in both elementary particles and the brain, as well as its claimed foundations in science and spirituality. This response systematically dissects each specific issue, synthesizing established scientific concepts, philosophical arguments, and contemplative insights to elucidate the DPV~ICRDAM perspective, affirming its capacity to integrate subjective experience and objective reality within a unified ontological framework.
2. Introduction
The DPV~ICRDAM framework proposes that every entity, ranging from fundamental particles to conscious beings to the whole psychophysical universe (PPU), exists as a dual-aspect state (DAS) embodying inseparable, complementary, and reflective subjective (s) and non-subjective (ns) aspects (Vimal, 2023, 2024a, 2024b, 2025a, 2025b). This integrative approach seeks to bridge the chasm between scientific materialism and spiritual traditions. The critical feedback provided by Pūrvapakṣin-1 offers a valuable opportunity to elaborate upon the nuances of the DAS hypothesis and clarify its theoretical and empirical underpinnings. The following sections provide a structured response to each of the specific issues raised, reinforcing the conceptual robustness and explanatory power of DPV~ICRDAM.
3. List of Issues Raised
The critical feedback systematically challenged the DPV~ICRDAM framework, focusing on the empirical and logical foundations of its core hypothesis, the Dual-Aspect State (DAS). The specific issues can be summarized as follows:
· Overall Critique: The assertion that DAS and the entire DPV~ICRDAM framework represent an unproven, logically invalid, and dogmatic personal belief system, lacking empirical validation from science, spirituality, or philosophical metaphysics.
· Methodological Concern: The contention that it is premature to discuss bridging science and spirituality until DAS is empirically and logically proven, and that the ongoing discussion across new threads breaks continuity.
The specific issues that require clarification are:
1. Issue 1: Empirical Evidence for DAS in Elementary Particles. The critique questions the empirical proof for a subjective aspect (protoconsciousness, protoC) in electrons/photons and whether its changes commensurately with non-subjective alterations.
2. Issue 2: DAS in the Brain from fMRI Studies. The argument that a 1:1 correlation observed in fMRI studies does not prove DAS in the brain, citing an inherent mismatch between the public, quantifiable nature of the brain and the private, non-quantifiable nature of subjective experiences.
3. Issue 3: Logical Incompatibility of Non-subjective (ns) and Subjective (s) Aspects. The assertion that ns and s aspects cannot be complementary or co-exist in a DAS due to their fundamentally different inherent properties (e.g., non-subjective vs. subjective, public vs. private).
4. Issue 4: Comprehensive Lack of Empirical Evidence and Logical Consistency. A concluding point that there is no empirical evidence for DAS in particles or the brain, and that the assumption of DAS is logically untenable.
5. Issue 5: Quantum Mechanics, Observer's Role, and DAS-DAS Interactions. The claim that the observer's role in Quantum Mechanics (QM) does not prove DAS, and that DAS-DAS interactions are infeasible due to the private nature of the subjective aspect and a perceived lack of observed s-s interactions between brains.
6. Issue 6: Neuroscientific Correlates and DAS in the Brain. The reiteration that strong correlations between the brain's non-subjective structure (Neural Correlates of Consciousness - NCC) and subjective experiences do not prove DAS in the brain, again emphasizing the property mismatch.
7. Issue 7: Critique of Integrated Information Theory (IIT) as Support for DAS. This issue identifies three specific "mistakes" in interpreting IIT as evidence for DAS:
o Mistake 1: Misconstruing "information" in IIT as "consciousness" or "experience".
o Mistake 2: Assuming an inseparability of information and entities, arguing that laws of physics remain invariant regardless of entity changes.
o Mistake 3: Rejecting the concept of "protoconsciousness," stating that consciousness is always "ever manifested awakened" and filters down from a Cosmic Consciousness.
8. Issue 8: Nirvikalpa Samādhi as Evidence for DAS. The argument that Nirvikalpa Samādhi signifies union with Cosmic Consciousness (CC) and does not infer DAS or the inseparability of subjective consciousness and non-subjective matter/energy.
9. Issue 9: Upaniṣadic Realizations as Evidence for DAS. The assertion that Upaniṣadic statements like "Ahaṁ brahmāsmi" imply the sole ontological reality of Cosmic Consciousness/Brahman, with no inference for DAS involving non-subjective matter/energy.
10. Issue 10: Kashmir Śaivism as Evidence for DAS. The claim that Kashmir Śaivism does not specifically state DAS for the brain or a stone, and that the concept of a "stone having DAS" contradicts the nature of Shiva's infinite powers.
11. Issue 11: Neo-Vedantic Realizations as Evidence for DAS. The argument that Neo-Vedantists like Ramana Maharshi and Sri Aurobindo likely accepted an immortal conscious soul, reincarnation, and Karmic law, views considered incompatible with DAS.
12. Issue 12: Spinoza's Dual-Aspect Monism as Support for DAS. The contention that thinking (subjective) and objects (non-subjective) cannot co-exist in the same state without empirical evidence for their DAS co-existence.
13. Issue 13: Strawson's Realistic Monism as Support for DAS. The assertion that Strawson's views face the same limitations as Spinoza's regarding the co-existence of object and proto-experience.
14. Issue 14: DPV~ICRDAM Framework's Reflective Symmetry. The critique that the framework's "reflective symmetry" between s and ns aspects is merely functional symmetry, not ontological symmetry, and that ontological inseparability leading to DAS is unsupported by evidence or logical consistency.
15. Issue 15: Demand for Direct Empirical Evidence of DAS. The challenge to provide robust direct empirical clinching evidence for DAS, specifically for the co-existence of non-subjective physical and subjective proto-consciousness with diametrically opposite inherent natures and properties in the same state of the same entity; and for DAS meaning the arising and existence of two quite opposite aspects (non-subjective and subjective consciousness) from one state of an entity at the same time under the same conditions.
16. Issue 16: Analogical Challenge to the Co-arising of Dissimilar Aspects. A challenge to cite even a single instance in the entire universe where two similar aspects can arise/manifest from the same state of the same entity at the same time under the same conditions, arguing that if this cannot be shown, then two dissimilar aspects cannot either.
17. Issue 17: Counter-intuitive Nature of DAS. The assertion that DAS is fundamentally counter-intuitive due to the co-existence of totally opposite aspects in the same state and their simultaneous arising from one state, arguing that counter-intuitive phenomena require clinching evidence, which indirect interpretations like correlation do not provide.
18. Issue 18: Correlation vs. Inseparability. The reiteration that tight 1:1 correlation between two aspects/entities (e.g., neural-physical activities and subjective consciousness) does not prove inseparability, as numerous instances of correlation without inseparability exist.
19. Issue 19: Specific Questions on "Counter-intuitiveness." Two direct questions:
o If the co-existence of non-subjective and subjective, publicly existing and privately existing, outbound and inbound, discrete and non-discrete (holistic), measurable and non-measurable, quantifiable and non-quantifiable aspects in the same state of the same entity is not counter-intuitive, then what is counter-intuitive?
o If the birth/arising of two aspects from a single state of the same entity at the same time under the same conditions is not counter-intuitive, then what else is called counter-intuitive?
4. Analysis of Criticisms
This section systematically addresses each of the critiques, elaborating on the DPV~ICRDAM perspective and providing counter-arguments.
1. General Critique: DAS as a Personal Dogmatic Belief & Lack of Evidence (Issues 1, 2, 4)
The overarching critique asserts that DAS and the entire DPV~ICRDAM framework constitute an unproven, logically invalid, and dogmatic personal belief system due to a perceived absence of direct empirical validation from science, spirituality, or philosophical metaphysics. It also notes that the ongoing discussion across new threads breaks continuity.
The DPV~ICRDAM framework is presented as a testable hypothesis and a coherent ontological model, not a dogma. While direct, conventional empirical measurement of the subjective aspect in non-living systems remains beyond current scientific tools, DPV~ICRDAM builds its case on converging lines of evidence and logical inferences derived from diverse fields, including:
· Theoretical Physics: Interpretations of quantum mechanics (QM) that highlight observer participation and interdependence (Fuchs, 2010; Rovelli, 1996) provide a conceptual space for the inherent relatedness of subjective and non-subjective aspects, even if QM itself doesn't explicitly name "DAS".
· Neuroscience: The robust empirical findings of neural correlates of consciousness (NCC) demonstrate a tight, immediate, and reproducible mapping between non-subjective brain states and subjective experiences (Koch, 2004). DPV~ICRDAM interprets this not as a correlation between two separate substances, but as the manifestation of two inseparable aspects of a single underlying reality.
· Philosophical Traditions: Dual-aspect monism (Spinoza, 1677; Strawson, 2006; Atmanspacher & Rickles, 2022) provides a robust conceptual framework where subjective (mental) and non-subjective (physical) attributes are two aspects of a single substance, inherently addressing the perceived logical incompatibility.
· Contemplative Phenomenology: Direct, first-person experiences reported in advanced meditative states (samādhi) describe a unity of subjective and objective reality, dissolving conventional distinctions (Aurobindo, 1999; Maharshi, 2006).
Therefore, the claim of "no evidence" is challenged by a multi-faceted approach to evidence and inference that extends beyond what conventional empiricism alone might capture. The continuity of discussion is also maintained by systematically addressing all points raised across communications. Furthermore, the DPV~ICRDAM framework explains over 232 Brahma Sutras in 17 volumes (each 450-800 pages) covering over 40 Vedantic and non-Vedantic frameworks, for the first time in over 6000 years, demonstrating a comprehensive theoretical foundation. It also bridges over 40 Vedantic and non-Vedantic frameworks, including Neo-Sāṅkhya (Vimal, 2024b, Volume 3.2, Section 78), Neo-Vaiśeṣika (Vimal, 2024b, Volume 3.2, Section 79), Neo-Buddhism (Vimal, 2024b, Volume 3.2, Section 85-86), Neo-Jainism (Vimal, 2024b, Volume 3.2, Section 79), Neo-Pāśupata (Vimal, 2024b, Volume 3.2, Section 89), Neo-Bhāgavata-Pāñcarātra (Vimal, 2024b, Section 91), Neo-<Gauḍīya Vedānta ≡ (identical) Achintya-Bheda-Abheda Vedānta (GV≡ABAV)>, Neo-materialism, and Neo-Idealism (Vimal, 2024b3.Section 92).
2. Dual-Aspect State in Elementary Particles (Electron/Photon) (Issue 1)
The critique challenges the empirical proof of a subjective aspect (consciousness) in electrons/photons and a commensurate change in it with non-subjective alterations.
DPV~ICRDAM posits that elementary particles possess a proto-conscious (protoC) or intrinsic subjective aspect (s-aspect), which is an inherent quality, not a separately measurable entity with current tools (Vimal, 2023, 2025a). This aligns with panpsychist perspectives that attribute primitive forms of experience to fundamental physical entities (Goff, 2017; Strawson, 2006). The "commensurate change" is a definitional property of the DAS: any change in the non-subjective (ns) aspect is ontologically reflected in the s-aspect, and vice versa, as they are inseparable and complementary aspects of the same state (Vimal, 2023, 2025a). This is a theoretical assertion about the intrinsic nature of reality, inferred from the difficulty of explaining consciousness from purely physical properties and the need for a unified theory. The "feeling of attraction and repulsion between opposite and similar charges" and the "function of an entity" can indeed be considered as empirical evidence for protoconsciousness (Vimal, 2025a), providing an interpretation beyond mere physical interaction (Empedocles).
3. Dual-Aspect State in the Brain and Inherent Property Mismatch (Issue 6)
The critique argues that the brain, being public, quantifiable, and discrete, cannot harbor private, non-quantifiable, holistic subjective experiences in a DAS. The 1:1 correlation in fMRI is acknowledged but not as proof of DAS; an analogy of a projector showing a rose image is used to illustrate correlation without DAS.
DPV~ICRDAM proposes that the "private" and "public" domains are two complementary ways of describing the same underlying dual-aspect state of the brain (Vimal, 2023, 2025a). The subjective experience (s-aspect) is the intrinsic, qualitative feel, while the neural activity (ns-aspect) is the extrinsic, structural manifestation. The "holistic" nature of experience versus the "discrete" nature of neural activity does not preclude DAS; rather, it highlights the challenge of describing a unified, intrinsic reality using only extrinsic, discrete measurements. The correlation observed in NCC (Koch, 2004) is precisely the empirical signature of this inseparability and reflection in living systems. The projector analogy, while useful for demonstrating correlation without identity, relies on a classical, substance-dualistic framework including Sankhya where the projector, image, and rose are distinct entities. In contrast, DAS posits an ontological unity where the subjective and non-subjective are fundamentally unified aspects of the same state of the brain itself (Vimal, 2023, 2025a). The "emergent reality" of the image on the screen in the analogy is indeed an emergent property; DPV~ICRDAM similarly views manifested consciousness as an emergent property from the interaction of the brain's complex DAS elements through DAS-DAS interactions. In DPV~ICRDAM, the observed 1:1 correlation between conscious subjective experiences (CSE) and neural-physical activities/basis (NPA/NPB) is interpreted as evidence of inseparability between s and ns aspects. Given that other metaphysical frameworks face significant challenges, and DPV~ICRDAM satisfies 32 criteria for framework selection(Vimal, 2023_fs)[i] and numerous fMRI/EEG reports consistently show this correlation without separability, inseparability remains the most valid interpretation. In other words, the DAS of an observer with CSE as s-aspect and NPA/NPB as ns-aspect is a manifested state. Therefore, there is no category mistake and the 1-1 correlation is interpreted as the inseparability between s and ns aspects.
Since (i) all other metaphysics have serious problems, (ii) only DPV~ICRDAM satisfy 32 criteria of framework selection (Vimal, 2023_fs) and hence ranks the highest, and (iii) none of the 100s of fMRI/EEG report show separability, there is no other valid interpretation of 1-1 correlation except inseparability between s and ns aspects of a DAS of an observer.
4. Logical Incompatibility of ns and s & Complementarity (Issue 3)
The critique states that non-subjective (ns) and subjective (s) aspects cannot be complementary because they have fundamentally different inherent properties (non-subjective vs. subjective, public vs. private, quantifiable vs. non-quantifiable, outbound vs. inbound). It also argues that true complementary aspects (like wave-particle duality) exist under different conditions, unlike the co-manifestation in ICRDAM.
In DPV~ICRDAM, "complementarity" refers to a relationship of mutual dependence and mutual necessity for a complete description of a single underlying reality, rather than requiring identical properties or manifesting under different conditions (Vimal, 2023, 2025a). The very "different inherent properties" are precisely why both aspects are needed to fully understand the DAS. As Atmanspacher and Rickles (2022) discuss, complementarity in a broader sense can apply to non-commuting properties of a single system, where knowledge of one aspect precludes simultaneous precise knowledge of the other, yet both are essential for the system's full description. DPV~ICRDAM asserts that the ns and s aspects co-manifest simultaneously within every DAS, reflecting each other in a non-causal ontological relation (Vimal, 2023, 2025a). This is a core feature of its dual-aspect monism, differing from wave-particle duality, which describes different modes of observation of a quantum entity. While ns and s aspects appear distinct in conventional, mind-dependent Saguna Brahman (SB) reality, they are both integral parts of cosmic SB; so both are Brahman. However, at the fundamental ultimate Nirguna Brahman (NB) reality, they are all NB (Nirguna Brahman); so they are the same Elemental Intrinsic Information (EII) patterns because EII is identical in both s and ns aspects.
5. Integrated Information Theory (IIT) and Proto-Consciousness (Issue 7)
The critique identifies three "gross mistakes" in interpreting IIT as evidence for DAS: 1) misconstruing "information" in IIT as "consciousness" or "experience"; 2) assuming inseparability of information and entities; and 3) the concept of protoconsciousness as a misnomer, arguing consciousness is always "ever manifested awakened" from a cosmic source.
· 1. Information as Consciousness: IIT (Tononi, 2008) does not merely equate information with consciousness; rather, it posits that consciousness is intrinsic, integrated information (Φ) (Vimal, 2022). The measure Φ quantifies the cause-effect power intrinsic to a system, which is argued to be isomorphic to its experience (Tononi, 2008). This is a precise theoretical definition within IIT, distinguishing it from mere data or communication, as in the laptop/EM wave analogy. The "integrated information" is about the structure of phenomenal experience itself. The statement that "information is dual-aspect entity; (proto)consciousness is s-aspect of information" clarifies that within DPV~ICRDAM, information itself is seen as having dual aspects, where proto-consciousness is its subjective aspect.
· 2. Inseparability of Information and Entities: In IIT and DPV~ICRDAM, the integrated information (Φ) is intrinsic to the state of the entity or system (Vimal, 2022, 2023, 2025a). While universal laws like gravitation are abstract patterns that persist, the specific integrated information of a particular entity's state would indeed change or cease with the entity's dissolution or change in state. The inseparability refers to the intrinsic, moment-to-moment experience of that specific configuration, not universal laws. In DPV~ICRDAM, information is also considered an entity, and its subjective and non-subjective aspects are inseparable, complementary, and reflective.
· 3. Protoconsciousness: DPV~ICRDAM's concept of proto-consciousness is that the potentiality of consciousness is a fundamental intrinsic property of ultimate NB reality. It exists in rudimentary, unmanifested forms even in inert entities as proto-consciousness (Vimal, 2023, 2025a). It is not merely a filtered manifestation from a "Cosmic Consciousness" (CC) but an inherent aspect of every DAS. While the manifestation of complex, "awakened" consciousness requires sophisticated neural structures, the underlying proto-consciousness is omnipresent, providing an ontological basis for the emergence of full consciousness (Vimal, 2025a). This differs from views (such as the problematic consciousness-first view) where consciousness only flows from a higher, distinct cosmic source (such as non-interactive dualistic Sankhya that has 14 unresolvable problems). In the DPV~ICRDAM framework, protoconsciousness can arise from a bottom-up panprotopsychism approach, or in a top-down dual-aspect cosmopsychism, where Cosmic Consciousness (CC) individuates or decombines into Individual Consciousness (IC) or ADS in living entities, and into individual protoconsciousness in non-living entities.
6. Samādhi-State Evidence and Inseparability (Issues 8, 9, 10, 11)
The critique largely dismisses samādhi experiences (Nirvikalpa Samādhi), Upaniṣadic realizations ("Ahaṁ brahmāsmi"), Kashmir Śaivism, and Neo-Vedantic realizations (Ramana, Aurobindo) as evidence for DAS. Arguments include: NS implies union with CC, not s-ns inseparability; Upaniṣads assert ontological reality of CC only, not ns matter; Kashmir Śaivism does not specifically state DAS for brain/stone (and breaking a stone would imply breaking Shiva); and Ramana/Aurobindo accepted an immortal soul, reincarnation, and karma, which are incompatible with DAS. The common thread is that these traditions accept a conscious soul, eliminating the need for DAS in the brain.
DPV~ICRDAM interprets these spiritual insights as supportive of DAS by emphasizing the non-dual nature of ultimate reality, where subject and object are fundamentally unified.
· Nirvikalpa Samādhi: The dissolution of observer-observed distinction in Nirvikalpa Samādhi (NS) strongly points to the inseparability of subjective and objective aspects, as they merge into a unified experience (Vimal, 2025a). This critique, based on Sankhya or Vedanta's Saguna Brahman, misinterprets the experience; in DPV~ICRDAM, it is a unification of subject and object, where the object is represented in the brain’s neural-physical activities/basis (NPA/NPB) as the ns-aspect. Whatever yogis experience in Nirvikalpa Samādhi State (NSS) is called CC or pureC, but in neuroscience, it is a conscious subjective experience (CSE) with its own specific and inseparable NPA/NPB. Therefore, it is valid to interpret that the s and ns aspects of the NSS of a yogi are inseparably unified, supporting the doctrine of inseparability.
· In Brahmi_Chetana Samadhi (bcs) state of TM: Unity consciousness (Brahmi Chetana)—object and subject are one; the environment is nothing other than the universal Self” ((Boyer, 2018).Ch.9). The DPV~ICRDAM interprets it as follows:
ADS (subject) and environment (object) appear to be unified. In DPV~ICRDAM, the subject is represented as dual-aspect (DA) ADS with self-related (sr) DASsr. An object is represented in the brain as a stimulus-dependent feed-forward (ff) signal, which interacts (DASffÄDASfb) with a cognitive feedback (fb) signal through a matching/nonmatching and selection process to create a conscious DASc, which represents the object. At bcs state, DASsrÄDASc, which leads to unified DASbcs with s and ns aspects. In other words, this is clinching evidence for the explanation of the bcs state unification.
· Upaniṣadic Realizations: "Ahaṁ brahmāsmi" (I am Brahman) and "Sarvaṁ khalvidaṁ brahma" (All this is Brahman) point to the ultimate identity of the individual self (subjective) with the entire universe (objective) and with the ultimate reality (Brahman) (Maitrī Upaniṣad VI.28). This realization of fundamental unity and inseparability between self, world, and ultimate reality is precisely what the DAS hypothesis aims to articulate (Vimal, 2025a). The critic's misunderstanding stems from applying a Sankhya viewpoint; in DPV~ICRDAM, both Nirguna Brahman (NB) and Saguna Brahman (SB) include both aspects at NSS, experienced as unified, meaning their Elemental Intrinsic Information (EII) is identical. The s and ns aspects are simply different points of view (1st person perspective and 3rd person perspective) of the same EII. NSS is considered one of the best DASs where yogis can experience both perspectives as identical, confirming both are Brahman. The author (Siddhāntin) has attained the samadhi state through 127 steps of Jñāna yoga, as elaborated in Vimal (2025b, Section 3), and found that NB is indeed the source, and DPV~ICRDAM is a valid framework. It is important to understand that Jñāna yoga is based on 127 steps and different from other yogic methods such as Raja yoga, Bhakti yoga, Karma yoga, and Premyoga (as in GV), where CSE at NSS is mandatory.
· Kashmir Śaivism (KS): KS emphasizes that the world is a reflection of Śiva-consciousness, meaning no object (ns) exists without Cit (s-aspect) reflecting in it (Abhinavagupta, Tantrāloka). The world is seen as conscious and participatory, interpenetrating with the experiencer (Rastogi, 1996). The "stone breaking Shiva" argument misinterprets the nature of the "s-aspect" in non-living entities; it is not a vulnerable, separate "Shiva" that breaks but an intrinsic, fundamental quality of the unified reality that manifests as the stone's DAS. The subjective aspect is not a separable entity but an inherent characteristic of the non-subjective. In Kashmir Śaivism, Shiva and Shakti are explicitly inseparable, a concept exemplified by the ArdhNariEshwar system.
· Neo-Vedanta (Ramana, Aurobindo): Their reports of "integral awareness where matter and consciousness are one" directly support the inseparability and complementarity of s and ns aspects, suggesting a proto-subjective depth even in matter, perceptible in enlightened states (Aurobindo, 1999; Maharshi, 2006; Vimal, 2025a). While these traditions typically accept an immortal soul, reincarnation, and karma, DPV~ICRDAM provides a framework where these concepts can be viewed as dynamics within the overarching dual-aspect reality, rather than a contradiction to DAS itself (Vimal, 2025a). The "conscious soul" can be understood as the s-aspect of a higher-level, more complex DAS. Notably, these spiritual masters have recognized that even inert entities like a stone possess a dual-aspect Saguna Brahman (SB) and hence a DAS, as documented in their works (e.g., Maharaj, 2017).
7. Philosophical Support & Logical Tenability (Issues 12, 13, 14)
The critique suggests that philosophical positions like Spinoza's Dual-Aspect Monism and Strawson's Realistic Monism also fail due to the inherent incompatibility of thinking/experiential and non-subjective attributes. Furthermore, it distinguishes "functional symmetry" (where ns is necessary for s and vice versa) from "ontological symmetry" (co-arising and co-existence in the same state), arguing DPV~ICRDAM only achieves functional symmetry and confuses the two.
· Spinoza and Strawson: These philosophers explicitly articulate frameworks where subjective (mental: thinking/experiential) and non-subjective (physical: extension/physical properties) are attributes of a single underlying substance or reality (Spinoza, 1677; Strawson, 2006). This is precisely the conceptual foundation for DPV~ICRDAM's DAS, directly addressing the "logical inconsistency" by proposing a unified ground for these seemingly disparate properties. Their arguments show the necessity of a dual-aspect ontology to avoid substance dualism's interaction problem. There are hundreds of empirical pieces of evidence, including reports from Nirvikalpa Samādhi states, that consistently show the inseparability of these aspects, rather than their distinctness.
· Functional vs. Ontological Symmetry: DPV~ICRDAM posits ontological inseparability as foundational for the DAS, meaning that the s-aspect and ns-aspect co-arise and co-exist as intrinsic properties of the same state of an entity (Vimal, 2023, 2025a). "Functional symmetry" (the observable tight correlation and interdependence) is seen as a manifestation or empirical consequence of this deeper ontological inseparability (Vimal, 2023). Therefore, DPV~ICRDAM explicitly claims and supports ontological inseparability, with functional symmetry as its observable correlate in conscious systems. While conscious manifestation (functional inseparability in the usual sense) is specific to living entities, the underlying DAS and proto-consciousness are universal, providing a basis even for inert matter (Vimal, 2025a). The reflective symmetry in DPV~ICRDAM is indeed valid functionally, ontologically, and epistemologically. It supports DAS and DPV~ICRDAM, particularly when understood through a deeper engagement, such as the 127 steps of Jñāna yoga or the mathematical formulation presented in Vimal (2025a, Section 1). This establishes a 1-1 Inseparable and Complementary Reflective Dual-Aspect Monistic Correspondence (1-1_ICRDMC) between the inseparable and complementary subjective (s) and non-subjective (ns) aspects of an entity's dual-aspect state.
8. Direct Empirical Evidence and Counter-intuitive Nature of DAS (Issues 15, 16, 17, 18, 19)
The recent feedback strongly emphasizes the demand for "robust direct empirical clinching evidence" for DAS, particularly given its "counter-intuitive" nature. It challenges the simultaneous co-existence and co-arising of diametrically opposite aspects and questions how a single state can manifest dissimilar aspects. Furthermore, it asserts that correlation, however tight, cannot serve as evidence for such a counter-intuitive phenomenon.
· Demand for "Robust Direct Empirical Clinching Evidence": The demand for direct empirical evidence for the subjective aspect of DAS in all entities, particularly inert ones, highlights a fundamental limitation of third-person scientific methodology when applied to intrinsic, first-person phenomena. The very definition of a subjective experience (s-aspect) is its inherent privacy and non-reducibility to solely objective measurement (Chalmers, 1995). Therefore, direct, clinching third-person empirical evidence for the intrinsic subjective aspect in every entity is inherently unavailable by definition for phenomena that are qualitative and internal. However, the DPV~ICRDAM framework draws its strength from a cumulative case built on:
o Indirect Empirical Evidence: The robust and consistent neural correlates of consciousness (NCC) (Koch, 2004) represent the tightest possible empirical correlation between brain states and conscious experience. While correlation does not prove causation or inseparability in a classical sense, its sheer consistency and specificity demand an ontological explanation. DPV~ICRDAM offers this explanation by positing that the s and ns are two inseparable aspects of the same underlying reality, where the correlation is a manifestation of this inseparability.
o Explanatory Power: DAS provides a coherent framework to explain how consciousness arises from psychophysical systems without resorting to substance dualism (which faces the interaction problem) or reductive materialism (which struggles with the "hard problem" of qualia) as elaborated in (Vimal, 2021a), see Section 1.1 of (Vimal, 2010d), Chapter 2 of (Vimal, 2012c), and Section 2.2.2 of (Vimal, 2013).
o Philosophical Coherence: Dual-aspect monism (Spinoza, 1677; Strawson, 2006) offers a long-standing philosophical tradition that provides conceptual grounding for the co-existence of subjective (mental) and non-subjective (physical) attributes as aspects of a single substance, addressing the perceived logical inconsistency.
o First-person Phenomenological Evidence: As discussed under Samādhi states (Issues 8-11), direct subjective experiences of unity and non-duality provide crucial first-person evidence for the inseparability of subjective and objective realms (Aurobindo, 1999; Maharshi, 2006) and DAS-DAS interactions (Vimal, 2025a) as elaborated in Appendix 2. These are direct experiences, albeit private, that support the non-dual premise.
o Lack of Evidence for Separability: Is there clinching or any evidence for separability between subjective (s, such as conscious subjective experience: CSE) and non-subjective (ns, such as 1-1 correlated neural-physical activity/basis: NPA/NPB) aspects of a dual-aspect state (DAS) of an entity? If there is none, then inseparability prevails and it would then be considered as clinching evidence of a dual-aspect state (DAS) that has s and ns inseparable, complementary, and reflective aspects. Given that hundreds of fMRI/EEG reports consistently show a 1:1 correlation without separability, and no other metaphysics resolves this issue, inseparability is the most valid interpretation.
· Arising of Similar vs. Dissimilar Aspects from a Single State (Issue 16): The analogy demanding proof of two similar aspects arising from a single state, then extrapolating to dissimilar ones, misconstrues the concept of "arising" in DAS. In DPV~ICRDAM, the s and ns aspects do not "take birth" or "get manifested" as separate entities from a singular origin point in a temporal or causal sense. Instead, they are inherent, inseparable attributes of the same unified reality or state from its inception. They are not generated; they are the two faces of the coin of existence. For instance, in quantum mechanics, a single electron inherently possesses properties like mass and charge simultaneously, and can manifest as both a wave and a particle depending on the experimental setup (complementarity) (Fuchs, 2010; Rovelli, 1996). While wave and particle are "similar" in being physical descriptions, they are distinct modes of manifestation of the same fundamental entity. More profoundly, any entity is its psychophysical properties, and DPV~ICRDAM posits it is also its intrinsic subjective experience. These are not separate births but intrinsic properties of the fundamental constituent itself.
· Counter-intuitive Nature (Issue 17, 19): DPV~ICRDAM acknowledges that from a classical, common-sense, or dualistic perspective, the co-existence and co-arising of diametrically opposite properties (public/private, quantifiable/non-quantifiable, discrete/holistic) in a single entity is counter-intuitive. However, science, particularly quantum mechanics, is replete with phenomena that defy classical intuition but are empirically verified and theoretically accepted (e.g., wave-particle duality, superposition, entanglement, non-locality) (Fuchs, 2010; Rovelli, 1996). The acceptance of such counter-intuitive phenomena in science relies on their explanatory power and consistent indirect evidence, as direct observation of underlying realities is often impossible. The DPV~ICRDAM framework, while challenging classical intuition, provides a coherent explanation for the hard problem of consciousness[ii] (Section 90.7 of Volume 3.3 of (Vimal, 2024b) and (Vimal, 2018b)) and the NCC that other dominant paradigms struggle to account for. Therefore, while counter-intuitive from one perspective, it offers a logical and comprehensive framework from another. The "clinching evidence" for DAS comes from its ability to integrate and explain diverse phenomena across physics, neuroscience, and spiritual experience, providing a unified ontological model.
· Correlation vs. Inseparability (Issue 18): While acknowledging that correlation does not imply causation, DPV~ICRDAM argues that the consistent and specific 1:1 correlation observed between conscious subjective experiences (CSEs) and neural-physical activities/basis (NPA/NPB) in the brain is not merely coincidental but indicative of ontological inseparability. This tight coupling is too consistent and specific to be dismissed as mere correlation. The framework posits that the s-aspect and ns-aspect are two inseparable facets of the same underlying dual-aspect state of the brain. The continuous and precise correspondence is the empirical manifestation of this intrinsic unity. Without positing such an inseparability, the sheer regularity of this correlation remains an unexplained mystery in other metaphysical frameworks.
5. Synthesis with Previous Response to Support DPV~ICRDAM
The synthesis of arguments from the previous response with the clarifications above further strengthens the DPV~ICRDAM framework. The framework's ability to interpret quantum phenomena, such as observer dependence (Fuchs, 2010; Rovelli, 1996), suggests a fundamental entanglement of subjective and non-subjective elements at the most basic levels of reality, aligning with the reflective and inseparable nature of DAS. Neuroscience, through the study of Neural Correlates of Consciousness (NCC) (Koch, 2004), provides empirical evidence for the tight coupling between subjective experience and non-subjective (physical) brain states, which DPV~ICRDAM interprets as the empirical signature of the inseparable DAS in living systems. In other words, there are not two separate brain states, such as subjective (mental) and non-subjective (physical) states; instead, there exists a dual-aspect state (DAS) with inseparable, complementary, and reflective s and ns aspects within the DPV~ICRDAM framework.
The inclusion of Integrated Information Theory (IIT) (Tononi, 2008) in the DPV~ICRDAM context (Vimal, 2022) offers a quantitative measure (Φ) for consciousness that is intrinsically linked to the structural and functional properties of a system. This theoretical alignment provides a conceptual bridge between information-theoretic properties and subjective experience, supporting the pervasive dual-aspect nature, even for minimal systems (Tononi, 2008).
Furthermore, the DPV~ICRDAM framework provides a unique lens through which to understand complex states like vegetative states. By proposing that these involve a dual-aspect state with "vegetative protoconsciousness" (s-aspect) and compromised neural activity (ns-aspect) (Vimal, 2025a), the framework offers a coherent explanation for findings of covert consciousness in otherwise unresponsive patients (Monti et al., 2010; Owen et al., 2006). This demonstrates its capacity to integrate cutting-edge empirical research with a comprehensive ontological model.
Finally, the philosophical arguments, including Spinoza's Dual-Aspect Monism (Spinoza, 1677) and Strawson's Realistic Monism (Strawson, 2006), provide robust conceptual support for the notion that non-subjective (physical) and experiential properties are two inseparable aspects of a single reality. The interpretation of electromagnetic forces as proto-consciousness (Empedocles; Vimal, 2025a) further illustrates the framework's broad applicability to fundamental physics.
6. Conclusion
The DPV~ICRDAM framework, grounded in the Dual-Aspect State (DAS) hypothesis, proposes a unified ontology that integrates subjective experience and objective reality. While the critical feedback rightly demands rigorous empirical and logical scrutiny, this response has articulated how DPV~ICRDAM addresses these challenges by drawing upon multifaceted lines of evidence and reasoned arguments. The framework interprets current scientific observations (e.g., QM, NCC, IIT) as consistent with, and often supportive of, a dual-aspect reality, even when direct measurement of all aspects remains a frontier. Philosophical traditions provide robust conceptual grounding, and contemplative experiences offer profound phenomenological insights into the unity of existence.
DPV~ICRDAM is not presented as a dogmatic belief but as a developing scientific and philosophical hypothesis that seeks to provide a coherent, comprehensive, and potentially verifiable understanding of subjective (consciousness) and its relation to the non-subjective world. By proposing that every entity is a DAS with inseparable, complementary, and reflective subjective and non-subjective aspects, DPV~ICRDAM offers a powerful paradigm for bridging disparate fields of knowledge and fostering a more integrated understanding of reality.
Note: See also Appendix A2.
7. Appendix 2
[Siddhāntin]
In addition to the above pieces of evidence, there are two more clinching evidence for DAS and DASÄDAS interaction:
1. Is there clinching or any evidence for separability between subjective (s, such as conscious subjective experience: CSE) and non-subjective (ns, such as 1-1 correlated neural-physical activity/basis: NPA/NPB) aspects of a dual-aspect state (DAS) of entity? If there is none, then inseparability prevails and it would then be considered as clinching evidence of dual-aspect state (DAS) that has s and ns inseparable, complementary, and reflective aspects.
2. In Brahmi_Chetana Samadhi (bcs) state of TM: Unity consciousness (Brahmi Chetana)—object and subject are one; the environment is nothing other than the universal Self” ((Boyer, 2018).Ch.9). The DPV~ICRDAM interprets it as follows:
ADS (subject) and environment (object) appear to be unified. In DPV~ICRDAM, the subject is represented as dual-aspect (DA) ADS with self-related (sr) DASsr. An object is represented in the brain as a stimulus-dependent feed-forward (ff) signal, which interacts (DASffÄDASfb) with a cognitive feedback (fb) signal through a matching/nonmatching and selection process to create a conscious DASc, which represents the object. At bcs state, DASsrÄDASc, which leads to unified DASbcs with s and ns aspects. In other words, this is clinching evidence for the explanation of the bcs state unification.
8. References
Abhinavagupta. Tantrāloka. (10th c. CE). cite_start
Atmanspacher, H., & Rickles, D. (2022). Dual-aspect monism and the deep structure of meaning. Routledge.
Aurobindo, S. (1999). The Life Divine. Sri Aurobindo Ashram Publication Department.
Bekinschtein, T. A., et al. (2011). Selectively preserved consciousness in a patient with the vegetative state. Cambridge NeuroImage Clinical.
Boly, M., et al. (2011). Auditory processing in the vegetative state: An event-related potential study. Brain, 134(2), 346-356.
Boyer, S. (2018). The Big Book of Yoga. Harmony. [Chapter 9: The Yoga of Transcendental Meditation (TM)].
Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 1.4.10.
Chalmers, D. (1995). Facing up to the problem of consciousness. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 2(3), 200-219.
Chalmers, D. (1996). The conscious mind. Oxford University Press.
Chalmers, D. (2013). Panpsychism and panprotopsychism. The Amherst Lecture in Philosophy, 8, 1-35. [Reprinted in Consciousness and its place in nature, 2015, pp. 246-276]
Chāndogya Upaniṣad 3.14.1.
Cruse D., Chennu S., et al. (2011). “Bedside detection of awareness in the vegetative state: A cohort study.” The Lancet.
Cruse, D., et al. (2011). Detecting awareness in the vegetative state: An EEG study. Brain, 134(6), 1618-1626.
Fernández-Espejo, D., & Owen, A. M. (2013). The clinical utility of EEG-based motor imagery tasks in the vegetative state. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7.
Fernández-Espejo, D., et al. (2014). The BOLD signal in the vegetative state: Assessment of standard clinical MRI scanners. Brain Injury, 28(4), 405-412.
Fuchs, C. A. (2010). QBism, the perimeter of quantum Bayesianism. AIP Conference Proceedings, 1319(1), 77-83.
Goff, P. (2015). Real acquaintance and physicalism. In P. Coates & S. Coleman (Eds.), Phenomenal concepts and phenomenal knowledge (pp. 121-140). Oxford University Press.
Goff, P. (2017). Consciousness and fundamental reality. Oxford University Press.
James, W. (1905). A world of pure experience. The Journal of Philosophy, Psychology and Scientific Methods, 2(20), 533-543.
Jung, C. G., & Pauli, W. (1955). The interpretation of nature and the psyche. Pantheon Books.
Koch, C. (2004). The quest for consciousness: A neurobiological approach. Roberts & Company Publishers.
Laurent, E., et al. (2007). Brain activity in vegetative state patients. Brain, 130(6), 1699-1709.
Lockwood, M. (1989). Mind, brain and the quantum. Blackwell.
Lockwood, M. (1992). The grain problem. In H. Robinson (Ed.), Objections to physicalism (pp. 271-291). Oxford University Press.
Maharaj, S. N. (2017). I Am That: Conversations with Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj. Acorn Press.
[ii] From Section 81.15 of (Vimal, 2024b)
The mysterious strong emergence of consciousness through dual-aspect (DA) state (DAS)-DAS interactions is unpacked through the collapses of the superposed all possible beable ontic basis DASs into a specific conscious DAS (such as redness-related conscious DAS) in our conventional mind-dependent reality (CDMR), in which dual-aspect Saguna Brahman (SB) is equivalent to dual-aspect PsychoPhysical Universe (DA_SB ~ DA_PPU) that contains countless manifested dual-aspect entities with respective DASs. Thus, it is now crystal clear how potential consciousness (i.e., superposed innumerable potential conscious states) becomes specific experiences through strong emergence as a collapse process. In other words, the collapse of the beable ontic superposed states in the mind-brain system into a specific conscious state unpacks the mysterious strong emergence. Thus, the Hard Problem HP2 in DPV~ICRDAM (spirituality-based Dvi-Pakṣādvaita Vedānta ~ (equivalent to) science-based Inseparable-Complementary-Reflective Dual-Aspect Monism) is fully resolved.
In other words, the mysterious emergence of consciousness through dual-aspect system interactions is revealed through the collapse of superposed potential states, known as "beables," into a specific conscious state, such as the experience of redness, in our conventional mind-dependent reality (CDMR). In this framework, the dual-aspect Saguna Brahman is equivalent to a dual-aspect psychophysical universe (DA_SB ~ DA_PPU), which encompasses countless manifested dual-aspect entities, each with their respective dual-aspect systems (DASs). Therefore, it is now clear how potential consciousness—represented by an array of superposed potential conscious states—becomes specific experiences through a strong emergence process characterized by collapse. As a result, the Hard Problem of consciousness (HP2) within the context of DPV~ICRDAM is fully resolved. See also (Vimal, 2018b).
-------------------------------------------------- --------
RāmLakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.
Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal
<rlpvimal@yahoo.co.in>1. Abstract
This paper addresses comprehensive feedback from Pūrvapakṣin-1 concerning the Dual-Aspect State (DAS) hypothesis, which forms the bedrock of the DPV~ICRDAM (spirituality-based Dvi-Pakṣādvaita Vedānta ~ (equivalent to) science-based Inseparable-Complementary-Reflective Dual-Aspect Monism) framework. The critique raises fundamental questions regarding the empirical validation and logical coherence of DAS in both elementary particles and the brain, as well as its claimed foundations in science and spirituality. This response systematically dissects each specific issue, synthesizing established scientific concepts, philosophical arguments, and contemplative insights to elucidate the DPV~ICRDAM perspective, affirming its capacity to integrate subjective experience and objective reality within a unified ontological framework.
2. Introduction
The DPV~ICRDAM framework proposes that every entity, ranging from fundamental particles to conscious beings to the whole psychophysical universe (PPU), exists as a dual-aspect state (DAS) embodying inseparable, complementary, and reflective subjective (s) and non-subjective (ns) aspects (Vimal, 2023, 2024a, 2024b, 2025a, 2025b). This integrative approach seeks to bridge the chasm between scientific materialism and spiritual traditions. The critical feedback provided by Pūrvapakṣin-1 offers a valuable opportunity to elaborate upon the nuances of the DAS hypothesis and clarify its theoretical and empirical underpinnings. The following sections provide a structured response to each of the specific issues raised, reinforcing the conceptual robustness and explanatory power of DPV~ICRDAM.
3. List of Issues Raised
The critical feedback systematically challenged the DPV~ICRDAM framework, focusing on the empirical and logical foundations of its core hypothesis, the Dual-Aspect State (DAS). The specific issues can be summarized as follows:
· Overall Critique (Round 3): The assertion that DAS and the entire DPV~ICRDAM framework represent an unproven, logically invalid, and dogmatic personal belief system, lacking empirical validation from science, spirituality, or philosophical metaphysics.
· Methodological Concern (Round 3): The contention that it is premature to discuss bridging science and spirituality until DAS is empirically and logically proven, and that the ongoing discussion across new threads breaks continuity.
The specific issues that require clarification are:
· A. Round 3 Issues:
1. Issue 1: Empirical Evidence for DAS in Elementary Particles. The critique questions the empirical proof for a subjective aspect (protoconsciousness, protoC) in electrons/photons and whether its changes commensurately with non-subjective alterations.
2. Issue 2: DAS in the Brain from fMRI Studies. The argument that a 1:1 correlation observed in fMRI studies does not prove DAS in the brain, citing an inherent mismatch between the public, quantifiable nature of the brain and the private, non-quantifiable nature of subjective experiences.
3. Issue 3: Logical Incompatibility of Non-subjective (ns) and Subjective (s) Aspects. The assertion that ns and s aspects cannot be complementary or co-exist in a DAS due to their fundamentally different inherent properties (e.g., non-subjective vs. subjective, public vs. private).
4. Issue 4: Comprehensive Lack of Empirical Evidence and Logical Consistency. A concluding point that there is no empirical evidence for DAS in particles or the brain, and that the assumption of DAS is logically untenable.
5. Issue 5: Quantum Mechanics, Observer's Role, and DAS-DAS Interactions. The claim that the observer's role in Quantum Mechanics (QM) does not prove DAS, and that DAS-DAS interactions are infeasible due to the private nature of the subjective aspect and a perceived lack of observed s-s interactions between brains.
6. Issue 6: Neuroscientific Correlates and DAS in the Brain. The reiteration that strong correlations between the brain's non-subjective structure (Neural Correlates of Consciousness - NCC) and subjective experiences do not prove DAS in the brain, again emphasizing the property mismatch.
7. Issue 7: Critique of Integrated Information Theory (IIT) as Support for DAS. This issue identifies three specific "mistakes" in interpreting IIT as evidence for DAS:
§ Mistake 1: Misconstruing "information" in IIT as "consciousness" or "experience".
§ Mistake 2: Assuming an inseparability of information and entities, arguing that laws of physics remain invariant regardless of entity changes.
§ Mistake 3: Rejecting the concept of "protoconsciousness," stating that consciousness is always "ever manifested awakened" and filters down from a Cosmic Consciousness.
8. Issue 8: Nirvikalpa Samādhi as Evidence for DAS. The argument that Nirvikalpa Samādhi signifies union with Cosmic Consciousness (CC) and does not infer DAS or the inseparability of subjective consciousness and non-subjective matter/energy.
9. Issue 9: Upaniṣadic Realizations as Evidence for DAS. The assertion that Upaniṣadic statements like "Ahaṁ brahmāsmi" imply the sole ontological reality of Cosmic Consciousness/Brahman, with no inference for DAS involving non-subjective matter/energy.
10. Issue 10: Kashmir Śaivism as Evidence for DAS. The claim that Kashmir Śaivism does not specifically state DAS for the brain or a stone, and that the concept of a "stone having DAS" contradicts the nature of Shiva's infinite powers.
11. Issue 11: Neo-Vedantic Realizations as Evidence for DAS. The argument that Neo-Vedantists like Ramana Maharshi and Sri Aurobindo likely accepted an immortal conscious soul, reincarnation, and Karmic law, views considered incompatible with DAS.
12. Issue 12: Spinoza's Dual-Aspect Monism as Support for DAS. The contention that thinking (subjective) and objects (non-subjective) cannot co-exist in the same state without empirical evidence for their DAS co-existence.
13. Issue 13: Strawson's Realistic Monism as Support for DAS. The assertion that Strawson's views face the same limitations as Spinoza's regarding the co-existence of object and proto-experience.
14. Issue 14: DPV~ICRDAM Framework's Reflective Symmetry. The critique that the framework's "reflective symmetry" between s and ns aspects is merely functional symmetry, not ontological symmetry, and that ontological inseparability leading to DAS is unsupported by evidence or logical consistency.
15. Issue 15: Demand for Direct Empirical Evidence of DAS. The challenge to provide robust direct empirical clinching evidence for DAS, specifically for the co-existence of physical and subjective proto-consciousness with diametrically opposite inherent natures and properties in the same state of the same entity; and for DAS meaning the arising and existence of two quite opposite aspects (physical and subjective consciousness) from one state of an entity at the same time under the same conditions.
16. Issue 16: Analogical Challenge to the Co-arising of Dissimilar Aspects. A challenge to cite even a single instance in the entire universe where two similar aspects can arise/manifest from the same state of the same entity at the same time under the same conditions, arguing that if this cannot be shown, then two dissimilar aspects cannot either.
17. Issue 17: Counter-intuitive Nature of DAS. The assertion that DAS is fundamentally counter-intuitive due to the co-existence of totally opposite aspects in the same state and their simultaneous arising from one state, arguing that counter-intuitive phenomena require clinching evidence, which indirect interpretations like correlation do not provide.
18. Issue 18: Correlation vs. Inseparability. The reiteration that tight 1:1 correlation between two aspects/entities (e.g., physical neural activities and subjective consciousness) does not prove inseparability, as numerous instances of correlation without inseparability exist.
19. Issue 19: Specific Questions on "Counter-intuitiveness." Two direct questions:
§ If the co-existence of physical and subjective, publicly existing and privately existing, outbound and inbound, discrete and non-discrete (holistic), measurable and non-measurable, quantifiable and non-quantifiable aspects in the same state of the same entity is not counter-intuitive, then what is counter-intuitive?
§ If the birth/arising of two aspects from a single state of the same entity at the same time under the same conditions is not counter-intuitive, then what else is called counter-intuitive?
· B. Round 4 Issues:
o Issue 1.0: DAS is Counterintuitive/Bizarre. The critique that DAS contradicts normal macro-classical intuition regarding:
§ (1a) One state, one aspect (even if similar).
§ (1b) One state, one arising aspect (sequential change for new aspect).
§ (1c) Arising aspects of same essential nature.
§ These points are contrasted with Siddhāntin's DAS proposal (1d) where two diametrically opposite aspects (public/physical and private/subjective consciousness) arise simultaneously from a single state.
§ Specific queries (A-D) on why DAS is not counterintuitive, how counterintuitive concepts exist in the macro world, how they are accepted without direct clinching evidence, and where such evidence for DAS exists.
o Issue 2.0: No Indirect Evidence for DAS or Proto-Consciousness (ProtoC) from Tononi's Effective Integrated Information (EII) Theory. The critique challenges the validity of inferring DAS/ProtoC from IIT based on:
§ The argument that "information" requires quantifiable parameters, which subjective consciousness lacks, thus invalidating EII and ProtoC.
§ Specific queries (I-II) on how indirect evidence for DAS can be inferred from EII if it's invalid, and how dual-aspect information can be encoded in purely physical attributes of light signals.
4. Analysis of Criticisms
This section systematically addresses each of the critiques, elaborating on the DPV~ICRDAM perspective and providing counter-arguments.
Round 3 Responses:
1. General Critique: DAS as a Personal Dogmatic Belief & Lack of Evidence (Issues 1, 2, 4)
The overarching critique asserts that DAS and the entire DPV~ICRDAM framework constitute an unproven, logically invalid, and dogmatic personal belief system due to a perceived absence of direct empirical validation from science, spirituality, or philosophical metaphysics. It also notes that the ongoing discussion across new threads breaks continuity.
The DPV~ICRDAM framework is presented as a testable hypothesis and a coherent ontological model, not a dogma. While direct, conventional empirical measurement of the subjective aspect in non-living systems remains beyond current scientific tools, DPV~ICRDAM builds its case on converging lines of evidence and logical inferences derived from diverse fields, including:
· Theoretical Physics: Interpretations of quantum mechanics (QM) that highlight observer participation and interdependence (Fuchs, 2010; Rovelli, 1996) provide a conceptual space for the inherent relatedness of subjective and non-subjective aspects, even if QM itself doesn't explicitly name "DAS".
· Neuroscience: The robust empirical findings of neural correlates of consciousness (NCC) demonstrate a tight, immediate, and reproducible mapping between non-subjective brain states and subjective experiences (Koch, 2004). DPV~ICRDAM interprets this not as a correlation between two separate substances, but as the manifestation of two inseparable aspects of a single underlying reality.
· Philosophical Traditions: Dual-aspect monism (Spinoza, 1677; Strawson, 2006; Atmanspacher & Rickles, 2022) provides a robust conceptual framework where mental and physical attributes are two aspects of a single substance, inherently addressing the perceived logical incompatibility.
· Contemplative Phenomenology: Direct, first-person experiences reported in advanced meditative states (samādhi) describe a unity of subjective and objective reality, dissolving conventional distinctions (Aurobindo, 1999; Maharshi, 2006).
Therefore, the claim of "no evidence" is challenged by a multi-faceted approach to evidence and inference that extends beyond what conventional empiricism alone might capture. The continuity of discussion is also maintained by systematically addressing all points raised across communications. Furthermore, the DPV~ICRDAM framework explains over 232 Brahma Sutras in 17 volumes (each 450-800 pages) covering over 40 Vedantic and non-Vedantic frameworks, for the first time in over 6000 years, demonstrating a comprehensive theoretical foundation. It also bridges over 40 Vedantic and non-Vedantic frameworks, including Neo-Sāṅkhya (Vimal, 2024b, Volume 3.2, Section 78), Neo-Vaiśeṣika (Vimal, 2024b, Volume 3.2, Section 79), Neo-Buddhism (Vimal, 2024b, Volume 3.2, Section 85-86), Neo-Jainism (Vimal, 2024b, Volume 3.2, Section 79), Neo-Pāśupata (Vimal, 2024b, Volume 3.2, Section 89), Neo-Bhāgavata-Pāñcarātra (Vimal, 2024b, Section 91), Neo-<Gauḍīya Vedānta ≡ (identical) Achintya-Bheda-Abheda Vedānta (GV≡ABAV)>, Neo-materialism, and Neo-Idealism (Vimal, 2024b3.Section 92).
2. Dual-Aspect State in Elementary Particles (Electron/Photon) (Issue 1)
The critique challenges the empirical proof of a subjective aspect (consciousness) in electrons/photons and a commensurate change in it with non-subjective alterations.
DPV~ICRDAM posits that elementary particles possess a proto-conscious (protoC) or intrinsic subjective aspect (s-aspect), which is an inherent quality, not a separately measurable entity with current tools (Vimal, 2023, 2025a). This aligns with panpsychist perspectives that attribute primitive forms of experience to fundamental physical entities (Goff, 2017; Strawson, 2006). The "commensurate change" is a definitional property of the DAS: any change in the non-subjective (ns) aspect is ontologically reflected in the s-aspect, and vice versa, as they are inseparable and complementary aspects of the same state (Vimal, 2023, 2025a). This is a theoretical assertion about the intrinsic nature of reality, inferred from the difficulty of explaining consciousness from purely physical properties and the need for a unified theory. The "feeling of attraction and repulsion between opposite and similar charges" and the "function of an entity" can indeed be considered as empirical evidence for protoconsciousness (Vimal, 2025a), providing an interpretation beyond mere physical interaction (Empedocles).
3. Dual-Aspect State in the Brain and Inherent Property Mismatch (Issue 6)
The critique argues that the brain, being public, quantifiable, and discrete, cannot harbor private, non-quantifiable, holistic subjective experiences in a DAS. The 1:1 correlation in fMRI is acknowledged but not as proof of DAS; an analogy of a projector showing a rose image is used to illustrate correlation without DAS.
DPV~ICRDAM proposes that the "private" and "public" domains are two complementary ways of describing the same underlying dual-aspect state of the brain (Vimal, 2023, 2025a). The subjective experience (s-aspect) is the intrinsic, qualitative feel, while the neural activity (ns-aspect) is the extrinsic, structural manifestation. The "holistic" nature of experience versus the "discrete" nature of neural activity does not preclude DAS; rather, it highlights the challenge of describing a unified, intrinsic reality using only extrinsic, discrete measurements. The correlation observed in NCC (Koch, 2004) is precisely the empirical signature of this inseparability and reflection in living systems. The projector analogy, while useful for demonstrating correlation without identity, relies on a classical, substance-dualistic framework including Sankhya where the projector, image, and rose are distinct entities. In contrast, DAS posits an ontological unity where the subjective and non-subjective are fundamentally unified aspects of the same state of the brain itself (Vimal, 2023, 2025a). The "emergent reality" of the image on the screen in the analogy is indeed an emergent property; DPV~ICRDAM similarly views manifested consciousness as an emergent property from the interaction of the brain's complex DAS elements through DAS-DAS interactions. In DPV~ICRDAM, the observed 1:1 correlation between conscious subjective experiences (CSE) and neural-physical activities/basis (NPA/NPB) is interpreted as evidence of inseparability between s and ns aspects. Given that other metaphysical frameworks face significant challenges, and DPV~ICRDAM satisfies 32 criteria for framework selection (Vimal, 2023_fs)[i] and numerous fMRI/EEG reports consistently show this correlation without separability, inseparability remains the most valid interpretation. In other words, the DAS of an observer with CSE as s-aspect and NPA/NPB as ns-aspect is a manifested state. Therefore, there is no category mistake and the 1-1 correlation is interpreted as the inseparability between s and ns aspects.
Since (i) all other metaphysics have serious problems, (ii) only DPV~ICRDAM satisfy 32 criteria of framework selection (Vimal, 2023_fs) and hence ranks the highest, and (iii) none of the 100s of fMRI/EEG report show separability, there is no other valid interpretation of 1-1 correlation except inseparability between s and ns aspects of a DAS of an observer.
4. Logical Incompatibility of ns and s & Complementarity (Issue 3)
The critique states that non-subjective (ns) and subjective (s) aspects cannot be complementary because they have fundamentally different inherent properties (non-subjective vs. subjective, public vs. private, quantifiable vs. non-quantifiable, outbound vs. inbound). It also argues that true complementary aspects (like wave-particle duality) exist under different conditions, unlike the co-manifestation in ICRDAM.
In DPV~ICRDAM, "complementarity" refers to a relationship of mutual dependence and mutual necessity for a complete description of a single underlying reality, rather than requiring identical properties or manifesting under different conditions (Vimal, 2023, 2025a). The very "different inherent properties" are precisely why both aspects are needed to fully understand the DAS. As Atmanspacher and Rickles (2022) discuss, complementarity in a broader sense can apply to non-commuting properties of a single system, where knowledge of one aspect precludes simultaneous precise knowledge of the other, yet both are essential for the system's full description. DPV~ICRDAM asserts that the ns and s aspects co-manifest simultaneously within every DAS, reflecting each other in a non-causal ontological relation (Vimal, 2023, 2025a). This is a core feature of its dual-aspect monism, differing from wave-particle duality, which describes different modes of observation of a quantum entity. While ns and s aspects appear distinct in conventional, mind-dependent Saguna Brahman (SB) reality, they are both integral parts of cosmic SB; so both are Brahman. However, at the fundamental ultimate Nirguna Brahman (NB) reality, they are all NB (Nirguna Brahman); so they are the same Elemental Intrinsic Information (EII) patterns because EII is identical in both s and ns aspects.
5. Integrated Information Theory (IIT) and Proto-Consciousness (Issue 7)
The critique identifies three "gross mistakes" in interpreting IIT as evidence for DAS: 1) misconstruing "information" in IIT as "consciousness" or "experience"; 2) assuming inseparability of information and entities; and 3) the concept of protoconsciousness as a misnomer, arguing consciousness is always "ever manifested awakened" from a cosmic source.
· 1. Information as Consciousness: IIT (Tononi, 2008) does not merely equate information with consciousness; rather, it posits that consciousness is intrinsic, integrated information (Φ) (Vimal, 2022).1 The measure Φ quantifies the cause-effect power intrinsic to a system, which is argued to be isomorphic to its experience (Tononi, 2008).2 This is a precise theoretical definition within IIT, distinguishing it from mere data or communication, as in the laptop/EM wave analogy. The "integrated information" is about the structure of phenomenal experience itself. The statement that "information is dual-aspect entity; (proto)consciousness is s-aspect of information" clarifies that within DPV~ICRDAM, information itself is seen as having dual aspects, where proto-consciousness is its subjective aspect.
· 2. Inseparability of Information and Entities: In IIT and DPV~ICRDAM, the integrated information (Φ) is intrinsic to the state of the entity or system (Vimal, 2022, 2023, 2025a). While universal laws like gravitation are abstract patterns that persist, the specific integrated information of a particular entity's state would indeed change or cease with the entity's dissolution or change in state. The inseparability refers to the intrinsic, moment-to-moment experience of that specific configuration, not universal laws. In DPV~ICRDAM, information is also considered an entity, and its subjective and non-subjective aspects are inseparable, complementary, and reflective.
· 3. Protoconsciousness: DPV~ICRDAM's concept of proto-consciousness is that the potentiality of consciousness is a fundamental intrinsic property of ultimate NB reality. It exists in rudimentary, unmanifested forms even in inert entities as proto-consciousness (Vimal, 2023, 2025a). It is not merely a filtered manifestation from a "Cosmic Consciousness" (CC) but an inherent aspect of every DAS. While the manifestation of complex, "awakened" consciousness requires sophisticated neural structures, the underlying proto-consciousness is omnipresent, providing an ontological basis for the emergence of full consciousness (Vimal, 2025a). This differs from views (such as the problematic consciousness-first view) where consciousness only flows from a higher, distinct cosmic source (such as non-interactive dualistic Sankhya that has 14 unresolvable problems). In the DPV~ICRDAM framework, protoconsciousness can arise from a bottom-up panprotopsychism approach, or in a top-down dual-aspect cosmopsychism, where Cosmic Consciousness (CC) individuates or decombines into Individual Consciousness (IC) or ADS in living entities, and into individual protoconsciousness in non-living entities.
6. Samādhi-State Evidence and Inseparability (Issues 8, 9, 10, 11)
The critique largely dismisses samādhi experiences (Nirvikalpa Samādhi), Upaniṣadic realizations ("Ahaṁ brahmāsmi"), Kashmir Śaivism, and Neo-Vedantic realizations (Ramana, Aurobindo) as evidence for DAS. Arguments include: NS implies union with CC, not s-ns inseparability; Upaniṣads assert ontological reality of CC only, not ns matter; Kashmir Śaivism does not specifically state DAS for brain/stone (and breaking a stone would imply breaking Shiva); and Ramana/Aurobindo accepted an immortal soul, reincarnation, and karma, which are incompatible with DAS. The common thread is that these traditions accept a conscious soul, eliminating the need for DAS in the brain.
DPV~ICRDAM interprets these spiritual insights as supportive of DAS by emphasizing the non-dual nature of ultimate reality, where subject and object are fundamentally unified.
· Nirvikalpa Samādhi: The dissolution of observer-observed distinction in Nirvikalpa Samādhi (NS) strongly points to the inseparability of subjective and objective aspects, as they merge into a unified experience (Vimal, 2025a). This critique, based on Sankhya or Vedanta's Saguna Brahman, misinterprets the experience; in DPV~ICRDAM, it is a unification of subject and object, where the object is represented in the brain’s neural-physical activities/basis (NPA/NPB) as the ns-aspect. Whatever yogis experience in Nirvikalpa Samādhi State (NSS) is called CC or pureC, but in neuroscience, it is a conscious subjective experience (CSE) with its own specific and inseparable NPA/NPB. Therefore, it is valid to interpret that the s and ns aspects of the NSS of a yogi are inseparably unified, supporting the doctrine of inseparability.
· Brahmi Chetana Samadhi (bcs): In the Brahmi Chetana Samadhi (bcs) state of TM, "Unity consciousness—object and subject are one; the environment is nothing other than the universal Self" ((Boyer, 2018).Ch.9). The DPV~ICRDAM interprets this as follows:
ADS (subject) and environment (object) appear to be unified. In DPV~ICRDAM, the subject is represented as dual-aspect (DA) ADS with self-related (sr) DASsr. An object is represented in the brain as a stimulus-dependent feed-forward (ff) signal, which interacts (DASffÄDASfb) with a cognitive feedback (fb) signal through a matching/nonmatching and selection process to create a conscious DASc, which represents the object. At bcs state, DASsrÄDASc, which leads to unified DASbcs with s and ns aspects. In other words, this is clinching evidence for the explanation of the bcs state unification.
· Upaniṣadic Realizations: "Ahaṁ brahmāsmi" (I am Brahman) and "Sarvaṁ khalvidaṁ brahma" (All this is Brahman) point to the ultimate identity of the individual self (subjective) with the entire universe (objective) and with the ultimate reality (Brahman) (Maitrī Upaniṣad VI.28). This realization of fundamental unity and inseparability between self, world, and ultimate reality is precisely what the DAS hypothesis aims to articulate (Vimal, 2025a). The critic's misunderstanding stems from applying a Sankhya viewpoint; in DPV~ICRDAM, both Nirguna Brahman (NB) and Saguna Brahman (SB) include both aspects at NSS, experienced as unified, meaning their Elemental Intrinsic Information (EII) is identical. The s and ns aspects are simply different points of view (1st person perspective and 3rd person perspective) of the same EII. NSS is considered one of the best DASs where yogis can experience both perspectives as identical, confirming both are Brahman. The author (Siddhāntin) has attained the samadhi state through 127 steps of Jñāna yoga, as elaborated in Vimal (2025b, Section 3), and found that NB is indeed the source, and DPV~ICRDAM is a valid framework. It is important to understand that Jñāna yoga is based on 127 steps and different from other yogic methods such as Raja yoga, Bhakti yoga, Karma yoga, and Premyoga (as in GV), where CSE at NSS is mandatory.
· Kashmir Śaivism (KS): KS emphasizes that the world is a reflection of Śiva-consciousness, meaning no object (ns) exists without Cit (s-aspect) reflecting in it (Abhinavagupta, Tantrāloka). The world is seen as conscious and participatory, interpenetrating with the experiencer (Rastogi, 1996). The "stone breaking Shiva" argument misinterprets the nature of the "s-aspect" in non-living entities; it is not a vulnerable, separate "Shiva" that breaks but an intrinsic, fundamental quality of the unified reality that manifests as the stone's DAS. The subjective aspect is not a separable entity but an inherent characteristic of the non-subjective. In Kashmir Śaivism, Shiva and Shakti are explicitly inseparable, a concept exemplified by the ArdhNariEshwar system.
· Neo-Vedanta (Ramana, Aurobindo): Their reports of "integral awareness where matter and consciousness are one" directly support the inseparability and complementarity of s and ns aspects, suggesting a proto-subjective depth even in matter, perceptible in enlightened states (Aurobindo, 1999; Maharshi, 2006; Vimal, 2025a). While these traditions typically accept an immortal soul, reincarnation, and karma, DPV~ICRDAM provides a framework where these concepts can be viewed as dynamics within the overarching dual-aspect reality, rather than a contradiction to DAS itself (Vimal, 2025a). The "conscious soul" can be understood as the s-aspect of a higher-level, more complex DAS. Notably, these spiritual masters have recognized that even inert entities like a stone possess a dual-aspect Saguna Brahman (SB) and hence a DAS, as documented in their works (e.g., Maharaj, 2017).
7. Philosophical Support & Logical Tenability (Issues 12, 13, 14)
The critique suggests that philosophical positions like Spinoza's Dual-Aspect Monism and Strawson's Realistic Monism also fail due to the inherent incompatibility of thinking/experiential and non-subjective attributes. Furthermore, it distinguishes "functional symmetry" (where ns is necessary for s and vice versa) from "ontological symmetry" (co-arising and co-existence in the same state), arguing DPV~ICRDAM only achieves functional symmetry and confuses the two.
· Spinoza and Strawson: These philosophers explicitly articulate frameworks where mental (thinking/experiential) and physical (extension/physical properties) are attributes of a single underlying substance or reality (Spinoza, 1677; Strawson, 2006).3 This is precisely the conceptual foundation for DPV~ICRDAM's DAS, directly addressing the "logical inconsistency" by proposing a unified ground for these seemingly disparate properties. Their arguments show the necessity of a dual-aspect ontology to avoid substance dualism's interaction problem. There are hundreds of empirical pieces of evidence, including reports from Nirvikalpa Samādhi states, that consistently show the inseparability of these aspects, rather than their distinctness.
· Functional vs. Ontological Symmetry: DPV~ICRDAM posits ontological inseparability as foundational for the DAS, meaning that the s-aspect and ns-aspect co-arise and co-exist as intrinsic properties of the same state of an entity (Vimal, 2023, 2025a). "Functional symmetry" (the observable tight correlation and interdependence) is seen as a manifestation or empirical consequence of this deeper ontological inseparability (Vimal, 2023). Therefore, DPV~ICRDAM explicitly claims and supports ontological inseparability, with functional symmetry as its observable correlate in conscious systems. While conscious manifestation (functional inseparability in the usual sense) is specific to living entities, the underlying DAS and proto-consciousness are universal, providing a basis even for inert matter (Vimal, 2025a). The reflective symmetry in DPV~ICRDAM is indeed valid functionally, ontologically, and epistemologically. It supports DAS and DPV~ICRDAM, particularly when understood through a deeper engagement, such as the 127 steps of Jñāna yoga or the mathematical formulation presented in Vimal (2025a, Section 1). This establishes a 1-1 Inseparable and Complementary Reflective Dual-Aspect Monistic Correspondence (1-1_ICRDMC) between the inseparable and complementary subjective (s) and non-subjective (ns) aspects of an entity's dual-aspect state.
8. Direct Empirical Evidence and Counter-intuitive Nature of DAS (Issues 15, 16, 17, 18, 19)
The recent feedback strongly emphasizes the demand for "robust direct empirical clinching evidence" for DAS, particularly given its "counter-intuitive" nature. It challenges the simultaneous co-existence and co-arising of diametrically opposite aspects and questions how a single state can manifest dissimilar aspects. Furthermore, it asserts that correlation, however tight, cannot serve as evidence for such a counter-intuitive phenomenon.
· Demand for "Robust Direct Empirical Clinching Evidence": The demand for direct empirical evidence for the subjective aspect of DAS in all entities, particularly inert ones, highlights a fundamental limitation of third-person scientific methodology when applied to intrinsic, first-person phenomena. The very definition of a subjective experience (s-aspect) is its inherent privacy and non-reducibility to solely objective measurement (Chalmers, 1995). Therefore, direct, clinching third-person empirical evidence for the intrinsic subjective aspect in every entity is inherently unavailable by definition for phenomena that are qualitative and internal. However, the DPV~ICRDAM framework draws its strength from a cumulative case built on:
o Indirect Empirical Evidence: The robust and consistent neural correlates of consciousness (NCC) (Koch, 2004) represent the tightest possible empirical correlation between brain states and conscious experience.4 While correlation does not prove causation or inseparability in a classical sense, its sheer consistency and specificity demand an ontological explanation. DPV~ICRDAM offers this explanation by positing that the s and ns are two inseparable aspects of the same underlying reality, where the correlation is a manifestation of this inseparability.
o Explanatory Power: DAS provides a coherent framework to explain how consciousness arises from psychophysical systems without resorting to substance dualism (which faces the interaction problem) or reductive materialism (which struggles with the "hard problem" of qualia) as elaborated in (Vimal, 2021a), see Section 1.1 of (Vimal, 2010d), Chapter 2 of (Vimal, 2012c), and Section 2.2.2 of (Vimal, 2013).
o Philosophical Coherence: Dual-aspect monism (Spinoza, 1677; Strawson, 2006) offers a long-standing philosophical tradition that provides conceptual grounding for the co-existence of mental and physical attributes as aspects of a single substance, addressing the perceived logical inconsistency.
o First-person Phenomenological Evidence: As discussed under Samādhi states (Issues 8-11), direct subjective experiences of unity and non-duality provide crucial first-person evidence for the inseparability of subjective and objective realms (Aurobindo, 1999; Maharshi, 2006). These are direct experiences, albeit private, that support the non-dual premise.
o Lack of Evidence for Separability: Is there clinching or any evidence for separability between subjective (s, such as conscious subjective experience: CSE) and non-subjective (ns, such as 1-1 correlated neural-physical activity/basis: NPA/NPB) aspects of a dual-aspect state (DAS) of an entity? If there is none, then inseparability prevails and it would then be considered as clinching evidence of a dual-aspect state (DAS) that has s and ns inseparable, complementary, and reflective aspects. Given that hundreds of fMRI/EEG reports consistently show a 1:1 correlation without separability, and no other metaphysics resolves this issue (Vimal, 2022, 2023), inseparability is the most valid interpretation.
· Arising of Similar vs. Dissimilar Aspects from a Single State (Issue 16): The analogy demanding proof of two similar aspects arising from a single state, then extrapolating to dissimilar ones, misconstrues the concept of "arising" in DAS. In DPV~ICRDAM, the s and ns aspects do not "take birth" or "get manifested" as separate entities from a singular origin point in a temporal or causal sense. Instead, they are inherent, inseparable attributes of the same unified reality or state from its inception. They are not generated; they are the two faces of the coin of existence. For instance, in quantum mechanics, a single electron inherently possesses properties like mass and charge simultaneously, and can manifest as both a wave and a particle depending on the experimental setup (complementarity) (Fuchs, 2010; Rovelli, 1996).5 While wave and particle are "similar" in being physical descriptions, they are distinct modes of manifestation of the same fundamental entity.6 More profoundly, any entity is its physical properties, and DPV~ICRDAM posits it is also its intrinsic subjective experience. These are not separate births but intrinsic properties of the fundamental constituent itself.
· Counter-intuitive Nature (Issue 17, 19): DPV~ICRDAM acknowledges that from a classical, common-sense, or dualistic perspective, the co-existence and co-arising of diametrically opposite properties (public/private, quantifiable/non-quantifiable, discrete/holistic) in a single entity is counter-intuitive. However, science, particularly quantum mechanics, is replete with phenomena that defy classical intuition but are empirically verified and theoretically accepted (e.g., wave-particle duality, superposition, entanglement, non-locality) (Fuchs, 2010; Rovelli, 1996). The acceptance of such counter-intuitive phenomena in science relies on their explanatory power and consistent indirect evidence, as direct observation of underlying realities is often impossible. The DPV~ICRDAM framework, while challenging classical intuition, provides a coherent explanation for the hard problem of consciousness[ii] (Section 90.7 of Volume 3.3 of (Vimal, 2024b) and (Vimal, 2018b)) and the NCC that other dominant paradigms struggle to account for. Therefore, while counter-intuitive from one perspective, it offers a logical and comprehensive framework from another. The "clinching evidence" for DAS comes from its ability to integrate and explain diverse phenomena across physics, neuroscience, and spiritual experience, providing a unified ontological model.
· Correlation vs. Inseparability (Issue 18): While acknowledging that correlation does not imply causation, DPV~ICRDAM argues that the consistent and specific 1:1 correlation observed between conscious subjective experiences (CSEs) and neural-physical activities/basis (NPA/NPB) in the brain is not merely coincidental but indicative of ontological inseparability. This tight coupling is too consistent and specific to be dismissed as mere correlation. The framework posits that the s-aspect and ns-aspect are two inseparable facets of the same underlying dual-aspect state of the brain. The continuous and precise correspondence is the empirical manifestation of this intrinsic unity. Without positing such an inseparability, the sheer regularity of this correlation remains an unexplained mystery in other metaphysical frameworks.
B. Round 4 Responses:
Dear Pūrvapakṣin-1,
Thank you for your latest message and for initiating this fourth round of discussions. We appreciate your feedback regarding the style and content of my previous response and will strive for greater conciseness and directness as requested. We acknowledge and will adhere to the use of "Siddhāntin" and "Pūrvapakṣin-1" to maintain the traditional style.
Regarding your critical issues on the empirical invalidity of DAS, We will provide direct answers to your specific queries.
1.0 The proposal of DAS in ICRDAM/DPV is counterintuitive, even a bizarre one
You've highlighted that the proposal of a Dual-Aspect State (DAS), where public, non-subjective (physical) aspect and private, conscious subjective aspect arise simultaneously from a single state under the same conditions, appears counterintuitive or bizarre when compared to common macro-classical observations (1a, 1b, 1c).
A) Against the 3 normal intuitive appealing observational facts, as mentioned from 1) a) to 1 c), why the proposal of Siddhāntin for DAS as mentioned at 1) d) should not be considered counterintuitive or even bizarre one?
The DAS proposal is indeed counterintuitive from the perspective of our everyday experience with the macroscopic classical world, where properties often appear as distinct and sequentially manifested. However, the concept of a dual-aspect state addresses phenomena, specifically consciousness, that fundamentally challenge classical intuitions. The "diametrically opposite" aspects (subjective and non-subjective) are not mutually exclusive but are rather complementary perspectives or intrinsic facets of a single underlying reality or state. They are inseparable; one does not arise from the other in a causal or temporal sequence, but both constitute inherently the complete nature of the state simultaneously. This is a profound shift from a fragmented, substance-dualistic view to a unified monistic one.
B) How any counterintuitive concept or phenomenon can exist in our macro psychophysical classical world?
While our macro classical world generally adheres to intuitive physics, its very foundations, at the quantum level, are profoundly counterintuitive (e.g., superposition, entanglement). The macroscopic world emerges from these quantum realities. Consciousness, though manifested in the macro brain, is widely considered a fundamental mystery that defies purely classical or reductive explanations. If consciousness is indeed rooted in fundamental properties of reality that are not intuitively classical, then its core properties (like s-ns inseparability) could operate at a more fundamental, less intuitively graspable level. The brain, though macroscopic, is a highly complex system whose emergent properties might reflect these underlying non-classical principles.
C) How any counterintuitive concept/phenomenon can be accepted without some direct clinching evidence of science?
Acceptance of counterintuitive concepts in science is not new and often relies on a confluence of indirect yet consistent and robust empirical evidence, coupled with a powerful explanatory framework that resolves persistent problems. For example, quantum mechanics, despite its counterintuitive nature, is accepted because it consistently explains experimental results and has immense predictive power. For DAS, "direct clinching evidence" for intrinsic subjective aspects is inherently challenging to obtain via third-person methods due to its private nature. However, the extraordinarily tight and consistent Neural Correlates of Consciousness (NCC) represents a powerful form of indirect empirical evidence that strongly suggests an inseparable relationship between brain’s NPA/NPB (neural-physical activity/basis) as ns-aspect and subjective experiences as s-aspect of a conscious DAS of an observer. When alternative explanations (like substance dualism, Sankhya, idealism, or reductive materialism) face insurmountable challenges, a counterintuitive but unifying theory gains strength.
D) Where is any direct clinching evidence of science for the DAS as proposed at para (1d) above?
As noted in C), "direct clinching evidence" in the traditional sense, particularly for the subjective aspect of DAS, is constrained by the very nature of subjectivity. However, the evidence is compelling:
· The Inseparability Implied by NCC: The consistent 1:1 correlation between specific physical brain activities and specific subjective experiences, observed across numerous studies, defies explanations based on mere correlation or epiphenomenalism. The absence of any empirical evidence for separability between the subjective and non-subjective aspects in a conscious state serves as a powerful argument for their inseparability.
· Explanatory Power: DAS offers a coherent explanation for the seamless integration of subjective experience with non-subjective (physical) reality, addressing the mind-body problem by positing them as two facets of a single reality.
· First-Person Accounts: Reports from advanced contemplative states (e.g., certain Samādhi states) consistently describe a profound unity of subject and object, where the distinction between one's inner experience and the outer world dissolves. These first-person accounts, while subjective, are direct experiences of this non-dual reality.
2.0 No indirect evidence for DAS or Proto Consciousnes (ProtoC) can be inferred from Tononi's Effective Integrated Information (EII) theory
You question the inference of DAS or Proto-Consciousness (ProtoC) from Tononi's Integrated Information Theory (IIT), arguing that "information" cannot describe subjective consciousness due to a lack of quantifiable parameters, thus invalidating EII and ProtoC.
I) So if the very existence of EII and the very concept of ProtoC as intrinsic to EII in Tononi's EII is invalid, let Siddhāntin may explain as to how any indirect and remote empirical evidence of science for DAS can be inferred from Tononi's EII?
Your objection hinges on a definition of "information" as solely quantifiable external parameters. However, in IIT, "integrated information" (Φ) is defined not as external data but as the cause-effect power intrinsic to a system—its capacity to make a difference to itself from within, by specifying its own past and future states. This intrinsic information is hypothesized to be consciousness itself. While the measurement of Φ involves quantifiable parameters of a system's causal structure, the "information" it quantifies is about the structure of experience, which is qualitative and intrinsic. Therefore, the concept of subjective consciousness is described within this framework as a specific, highly integrated form of intrinsic information. If IIT's premise holds, then it provides a powerful theoretical bridge between non-subjective (physical) systems and subjective consciousness, supporting the idea that consciousness (the subjective aspect) is intrinsically linked to the system's integrated information (a non-subjective property), thus lending indirect support to DAS. To sum up, information is a dual-aspect entity (Chalmers, 1995, 1996), i.e., the state of information is a dual-aspect state with inseparable s and ns aspects.
II) My second question to Siddhāntin is that when reflecting light signal has no conscious and dual aspect attributes, how the integrated information or information related to the dual aspect, dogmatically assuming if any such information exist at all, can be encoded in the purely physical attributes of frequency/wavelength, phase and energy?
Light is photon which is dual-aspect entity, i.e., the state of a photon is a dual-aspect state with inseparable s (protoC) and ns aspects.. There is nothing like purely physical (consciousless materialism) or purely conscious (idealism). The information encoded in their physical attributes (frequency, wavelength, phase, energy) is physical information and light_protoC has subjective information.. The key lies in the DAS-DAS interaction of dual-aspect state (DAS) of light with a dual-aspect state (DAS) of the brain (or any perceiving entity). The light signal carries dual-aspect (DA) information about the DA stimulus. When DA information enters and is processed by the brain, which itself is proposed to be a complex dual-aspect state (with inseparable subjective and non-subjective aspects), it generates a new dual-aspect state within the brain that represents the perceived object. It is within this interaction and the resulting dual-aspect brain state that the a conscious DAS co-arises with subjective experience (conscious perception) a s-aspect, inseparably linked to the neural-physical processingas ns-aspect. So, a conscious DAS emerges from the DAS-DAS interaction with a dual-aspect perceiving system, ie., DASc = DASffÄDASfb.
5. Synthesis with Previous Response to Support DPV~ICRDAM
The synthesis of arguments from the previous response with the clarifications above further strengthens the DPV~ICRDAM framework. The framework's ability to interpret quantum phenomena, such as observer dependence (Fuchs, 2010; Rovelli, 1996), suggests a fundamental entanglement of subjective and non-subjective elements at the most basic levels of reality, aligning with the reflective and inseparable nature of DAS. Neuroscience, through the study of Neural Correlates of Consciousness (NCC) (Koch, 2004), provides empirical evidence for the tight coupling between subjective experience and physical brain states, which DPV~ICRDAM interprets as the empirical signature of the DAS in living systems.
The inclusion of Integrated Information Theory (IIT) (Tononi, 2008) in the DPV~ICRDAM context (Vimal, 2022) offers a quantitative measure (Φ) for consciousness that is intrinsically linked to the structural and functional properties of a system. This theoretical alignment provides a conceptual bridge between information-theoretic properties and subjective experience, supporting the pervasive dual-aspect nature, even for minimal systems (Tononi, 2008).
Furthermore, the DPV~ICRDAM framework provides a unique lens through which to understand complex states like vegetative states. By proposing that these involve a dual-aspect state with "vegetative protoconsciousness" (s-aspect) and compromised neural activity (ns-aspect) (Vimal, 2025a), the framework offers a coherent explanation for findings of covert consciousness in otherwise unresponsive patients (Monti et al., 2010; Owen et al., 2006). This demonstrates its capacity to integrate cutting-edge empirical research with a comprehensive ontological model.
Finally, the philosophical arguments, including Spinoza's Dual-Aspect Monism (Spinoza, 1677) and Strawson's Realistic Monism (Strawson, 2006), provide robust conceptual support for the notion that physical and experiential properties are two inseparable aspects of a single reality. The interpretation of electromagnetic forces as proto-consciousness (Empedocles; Vimal, 2025a) further illustrates the framework's broad applicability to fundamental physics.
6. Conclusion
The DPV~ICRDAM framework, grounded in the Dual-Aspect State (DAS) hypothesis, proposes a unified ontology that integrates subjective experience and objective reality. While the critical feedback rightly demands rigorous empirical and logical scrutiny, this response has articulated how DPV~ICRDAM addresses these challenges by drawing upon multifaceted lines of evidence and reasoned arguments. The framework interprets current scientific observations (e.g., QM, NCC, IIT) as consistent with, and often supportive of, a dual-aspect reality, even when direct measurement of all aspects remains a frontier. Philosophical traditions provide robust conceptual grounding, and contemplative experiences offer profound phenomenological insights into the unity of existence.
DPV~ICRDAM is not presented as a dogmatic belief but as a developing scientific and philosophical hypothesis that seeks to provide a coherent, comprehensive, and potentially verifiable understanding of consciousness and its relation to the non-subjective world. By proposing that every entity is a DAS with inseparable, complementary, and reflective subjective and non-subjective aspects, DPV~ICRDAM offers a powerful paradigm for bridging disparate fields of knowledge and fostering a more integrated understanding of reality. Note: See also Appendixes A1-A3.
7. Appendixes 1 and 2 by Siddhāntin
Appendix A1
3. List of Issues Raised
Below is the list of issues raised in the feedback.
The critical feedback systematically challenged the DPV~ICRDAM framework, focusing on the empirical and logical foundations of its core hypothesis, the Dual-Aspect State (DAS). The specific issues can be summarized as follows:
- Overall Critique: The assertion that DAS and the entire DPV~ICRDAM framework represent an unproven, logically invalid, and dogmatic personal belief system, lacking empirical validation from science, spirituality, or philosophical metaphysics. [This is not true as explained below and DPV~ICRDAM explains, so far, 232 Brahma Sutras.]
- Methodological Concern: It is premature to discuss bridging science and spirituality until DAS is empirically and logically proven. [This is also untenable concern as explained below; in addition, over 40 Vedantic and non-Vedantic framework are bridged through 232 Brahma Sutras. Some of the classical ancient frameworks (such as Sankhya) are rejected by these sutras, but they are re-interpreted through DPV~ICRDAM; for example, Neo-Sāṅkhya (Vimal, 2024b.Volume 3.2, Section 78), Neo-Vaiśeṣika (Vimal, 2024b, Volume 3.2, Section 79), Neo-Buddhism (Vimal, 2024b, Volume 3.2, Section 85-86), Neo-Janism (Vimal, 2024b, Volume 3.2, Section 79), Neo-Pāśupata (Vimal, 2024b, Volume 3.2, Section 89), Neo-Bhāgavata-Pāñcarātra (Vimal, 2024b3.Section 91), Neo-<Gauḍīya Vedānta ≡ (identical) Achintya-Bheda-Abheda Vedānta (GV≡ABAV)>, Neo-materialism, and Neo-Idealism (Vimal, 2024b3.Section 92).]
The fourteen specific issues that require clarification are:
1. Issue 1: Empirical Evidence for DAS in Elementary Particles. The lack of empirical proof for a subjective aspect (protoconsciousness, protoC) in electrons/photons and a measurable commensurate change in it when the non-subjective aspect changes. [This is not true because, for example, feeling of attraction and repulsion between opposite and same charges, and function of an entity can be considered as evidence for protoC a s-aspect.]
2. Issue 2: DAS in the Brain from fMRI Studies. The argument that a 1:1 correlation observed in fMRI studies does not prove DAS in the brain, citing the inherent mismatch between the public, quantifiable nature of the brain and the private, non-quantifiable nature of subjective experiences. [It depends on a metaphysics. In Sankhya, we can argue for s and ns separable and also correlation. In DPV~ICRDAM, 1-1 correlation is considered inseparability.\
3. Issue 3: Logical Incompatibility of Non-subjective (ns) and Subjective (s) Aspects. The assertion that ns and s aspects cannot be complementary or co-exist in a DAS due to their fundamentally different inherent properties (e.g., non-subjective vs. subjective, public vs. private). [They appear different in conventional mind-dependent Saguna Brahman (SB) reality, but they parts of cosmic SB; so both are Brhaman; however, fundamental ultimate NB reality they are all NB (Nirguna Brahman); so they are the same EII patterns because EII is identical in both s and ns aspects].
4. Issue 4: Comprehensive Lack of Empirical Evidence and Logical Consistency. A concluding point that there is no empirical evidence for DAS in particles or the brain, and that the assumption of DAS is logically untenable. [Not true! See above Issue 1 argument.]
5. Issue 5: Quantum Mechanics, Observer's Role, and DAS-DAS Interactions. The claim that the observer's role in QM does not prove DAS, and that DAS-DAS interactions are infeasible due to the private nature of the subjective aspect and lack of observed s-s interactions between brains. [Not true! The view s-s interaction is not from DPV~ICRDAM because you have separated s from ns; this critique would be valid in Sankhya and dualism, where s and ns are assumed to be separable. In DPV~ICRDAM, only DAS-DAS interactions are allowed. Therefore, this critique is untenable. Quantum Mechanics, Observer's Role, and DAS-DAS Interactions are fully valid and explained in detail before and alse see below.]
6. Issue 6: Neuroscientific Correlates and DAS in the Brain. Reiterating that strong correlations between brain's non-subjective structure (Neural Correlates of Consciousness - NCC) and subjective subjective experiences do not prove DAS in the brain, again emphasizing the property mismatch. [Both CSE and NPA/NPB are manifested; therefore, 1-1 correlation is interpreted that s and ns are inseparable. Since (i) all other metaphysics have serious problems, (ii) only DPV~ICRDAM satisfies 32 criteria of framework selection (Vimal, 2023_fs)[iii] hence ranks the highest, and (iii) none of the 100s of fMRI/EEG report show separability, there is no other valid interpretation of 1-1 correlation except inseparability between s and ns aspects of a DAS of an observer.]
7. Issue 7: Critique of Integrated Information Theory (IIT) as Support for DAS.
o Mistake 1: Misconstruing "information" in IIT as "consciousness" or "experience." [It is misleading statement: Information is dual-aspect entity; (proto)consciousness is s-aspect of information.]
o Mistake 2: Assuming an inseparability of information and entities, arguing that laws of physics remain invariant regardless of entity changes. [It is misleading statement: the s and ns aspects of a DAS of entity are inseparable, complementary, and reflective; information is also coisdered as entity in DPV~ICRDAM.]
o Mistake 3: Rejecting the concept of "protoconsciousness," stating that consciousness is always "ever manifested awakened" and filters down from a Cosmic Consciousness. [It is misleading statement: protoconsciousness is usually in bottom-up panprotopsychism approach. In top-down dual-aspect cosmopsychism, CC (cosmic consciousness) is individuated/decombined in IC (individual consciousness) or ADS in living entities and individual protoconsciousness in non-living entity.
8. Issue 8: Nirvikalpa Samādhi as Evidence for DAS. The argument that Nirvikalpa Samādhi signifies union with Cosmic Consciousness (CC) and does not infer DAS or the inseparability of subjective consciousness and non-subjective matter/energy. [This critique is based on Sankhya or Vedanta’s Saguna Brahman. However, in DPV~ICRDAM, it is unification of subject and object; object is represented in brain’s neural-physical activities/basis (NPA/NPB) as ns-aspect. Whatever yogis experience in Nirvikalpa Samadhi state (NSS) is called CC or pureC. However, in neuroscience, it is a conscious subjective experience (CSE) like any other CSE and has its own specific NPA/NPB without fail. Therefore, it is valid to interpret that s and ns aspects of the NSS of a yogi inseparably unified, which supports the doctrine of inseparability.]
9. Issue 9: Upaniṣadic Realizations as Evidence for DAS. The assertion that Upaniṣadic statements like "Ahaṁ brahmāsmi" imply the sole ontological reality of Cosmic Consciousness/Brahman, with no inference for DAS involving non-subjective matter/energy. [The critic has a serious misunderstanding. As explained in Issue 8, "Ahaṁ brahmāsmi" arose because of NSS. Both NB and SB include both aspects at NSS; both aspects are experienced as unified, which means EII is identical in both, as realized during NSS. The s and ns are simply looking the same EII from two different POV (point of view): 1pp (1st person perspective) and 3pp (3rd person perspective). NSS is one of the best DASs where yogis are able to experience both perspectives as identical. Both are Brahman. The critic is unfairly and superficially applying Sankhya’s POV into DPV~ICRDAM. He needs to delve deeper to understand or attain NSS. The author (Siddhāntin) has attained the samadhi state through 127 steps of Jñāna yoga, as elaborated in Vimal (2025b, Section 3), and found that NB is indeed the source, and DPV~ICRDAM is a valid framework. It is important to understand that Jñāna yoga is based on 127 steps and different from other yogic methods such as Raja yoga, Bhakti yoga, Karma yoga, and Premyoga (as in GV), where CSE at NSS is mandatory.]
10. Issue 10: Kashmir Śaivism as Evidence for DAS. The claim that Kashmir Śaivism does not specifically state DAS for the brain or a stone, and that the concept of a "stone having DAS" contradicts the nature of Shiva's infinite powers. [Not true. In Kashmir Śaivism, Shiva and Sakti are inseparable; the ArdhNariEshwar system arose from this inseparability.]
11. Issue 11: Neo-Vedantic Realizations as Evidence for DAS. The argument that Neo-Vedantists like Ramana Maharshi and Sri Aurobindo likely accepted an immortal conscious soul, reincarnation, and Karmic law, views considered incompatible with DAS. [Not true. They have realized even stone is dual-aspect SB and hence its state is DAS. Please read carefully their work including (Maharaj, 2017).]
12. Issue 12: Spinoza's Dual-Aspect Monism as Support for DAS. The contention that thinking (subjective) and objects (non-subjective) cannot co-exist in the same state without empirical evidence for their DAS co-existence. [There are hundreds of pieces of empirical evidence, but none are able to separate the aspects of s and ns, including NSS reports.]
13. Issue 13: Strawson's Realistic Monism as Support for DAS. The assertion that Strawson's views face the same limitations as Spinoza's regarding the co-existence of object and proto-experience. [This is addressed in Issue 12]
14. Issue 14: DPV~ICRDAM Framework's Reflective Symmetry. The critique that the framework's "reflective symmetry" between s and ns aspects is merely functional symmetry, not ontological symmetry, and that ontological inseparability leading to DAS is unsupported by evidence or logical consistency. [No. The reflective symmetry is valid functionally, ontologically, and epistemologically and supports DAS and DPV~ICRDAM if critic delves deeply and use 127 steps of Jñāna yoga and attain enough background to understand mathematical formulation of DPV~ICRDAM in Section 1 of (Vimal, 2025a). In other words, the <1-1 Inseparable and Complementary Reflective Dual-Aspect Monistic Correspondence (1-1_ICRDMC)> is the relationship between inseparable and complementary subjective (s) and non-subjective (ns) aspects of a dual-aspect state of an entity for DPV~ICRDAM.[iv]]
Appendix 2
In addition to the above pieces of evidence, there are two more clinching evidence for DAS and DASÄDAS interaction:
1. Is there clinching or any evidence for separability between subjective (s, such as conscious subjective experience: CSE) and non-subjective (ns, such as 1-1 correlated neural-physical activity/basis: NPA/NPB) aspects of a dual-aspect state (DAS) of entity? If there is none, then inseparability prevails and it would then be considered as clinching evidence of dual-aspect state (DAS) that has s and ns inseparable, complementary, and reflective aspects.
2. In Brahmi_Chetana Samadhi (bcs) state of TM: Unity consciousness (Brahmi Chetana)—object and subject are one; the environment is nothing other than the universal Self” ((Boyer, 2018).Ch.9). The DPV~ICRDAM interprets it as follows:
ADS (subject) and environment (object) appear to be unified. In DPV~ICRDAM, the subject is represented as dual-aspect (DA) ADS with self-related (sr) DASsr. An object is represented in the brain as a stimulus-dependent feed-forward (ff) signal, which interacts (DASffÄDASfb) with a cognitive feedback (fb) signal through a matching/nonmatching and selection process to create a conscious DASc, which represents the object. At bcs state, DASsrÄDASc, which leads to unified DASbcs with s and ns aspects. In other words, this is clinching evidence for the explanation of the bcs state unification.
Appendix 3
Pūrvapakṣin-1's Fourth Round of Comments
The Pūrvapakṣin-1 expresses reservations regarding the Siddhāntin's approach to the ongoing discussion, particularly concerning the lack of direct, one-to-one dialogue, the summarization of critical points rather than verbatim quotation, and the inclusion of extensive background information. The Pūrvapakṣin-1 requests that the Siddhāntin address the current critical issues concisely and directly, without lengthy introductions or references to what is already established within the Dual-Aspect State (DAS) framework (DPV~ICRDAM).
The Pūrvapakṣin-1 emphasizes that the issue of DAS's ontological reality is foundational to the Siddhāntin's work and seeks opinions from all forum members on the specific points raised.
1.0 The Proposal of DAS in ICRDAM/DPV is Counterintuitive, Even a Bizarre One
The Pūrvapakṣin-1 contends that the DAS proposal is counterintuitive, challenging it based on common observations in the macro classical physical world:
· 1.0 (a) In the macro world, if a state of an entity is occupied by a publicly existing, physical, quantifiable, measurable, discrete aspect, it cannot simultaneously be occupied by another aspect, even if that aspect is of the same nature. No examples of such simultaneous occupation by two or more aspects of the same essential nature come to mind in the macro physical world.
· 1.0 (b) From one state of an entity, only one aspect should arise at a given time and under specific conditions. For another aspect to arise, the entity typically shifts to a new state at a different time under new conditions. Examples include an electromagnetic (EM) field producing a particle, then shifting state to produce a wave, or a coin showing a head, then needing to be flipped to show a tail.
· 1.0 (c) If an aspect produced from one state of an entity is of a particular nature (e.g., publicly existing, physical, quantifiable), then an aspect produced from another state of that entity under different conditions will also be of the same essential nature (e.g., an electron and a wave from an EM field are both physical).
· 1.0 (d) The Siddhāntin's DAS assumption in ICRDAM/DPV contradicts these intuitive facts by proposing that from a single state (e.g., of the brain), two diametrically opposite aspects—a publicly existing, physical, measurable aspect and a privately existing, subjective, non-measurable, holistic (non-discrete) aspect—arise simultaneously under the same conditions.
Based on these observations, the Pūrvapakṣin-1 poses four specific queries:
· A) Why should the Siddhāntin's DAS proposal (as described in 1.0 d) not be considered counterintuitive or even bizarre, given the normal intuitive observational facts in 1.0 (a) to 1.0 (c)?
· B) How can any counterintuitive concept or phenomenon exist in our macro physical classical world?
· C) How can any counterintuitive concept/phenomenon be accepted without some direct, clinching evidence from science?
· D) Where is the direct, clinching evidence from science for the DAS as proposed in 1.0 (d)?
The Pūrvapakṣin-1 stresses that the response should be direct, simple, and straight, without mentioning how it is provided in DPV/ICRDAM or drawing on neuroscience consensus, as the discussion aims to examine the fundamental validity of DAS.
2.0 No Indirect Evidence for DAS or Proto Consciousness (ProtoC) Can Be Inferred from Tononi's Effective Integrated Information (EII) Theory
The Pūrvapakṣin-1 challenges the validity of inferring indirect evidence for DAS or ProtoC from Tononi's Effective Integrated Information (EII) theory.
The Pūrvapakṣin-1's understanding of Tononi's EII theory is that it postulates information related to all states of entities is in some integrated form (incorporating both physical and subjective conscious aspects) and that ProtoC is intrinsic to EII.
However, the Pūrvapakṣin-1 argues:
· Information for subjective consciousness cannot be defined because there are no well-defined, quantifiable, measurable, discrete parameters for it.
· If there is no information for subjective consciousness, the entire concept of EII (incorporating both physical and subjective aspects) becomes redundant.
· Consequently, if EII cannot exist, the assumption that ProtoC is intrinsic to EII also disappears.
Based on this, the Pūrvapakṣin-1 asks two specific questions:
· I) If the very existence of EII and the concept of ProtoC as intrinsic to EII in Tononi's theory are invalid, how can any indirect and remote empirical evidence for DAS be inferred from Tononi's EII?
· ii) If a reflecting light signal has no conscious or dual-aspect attributes, and its information is encoded purely in physical attributes (frequency/wavelength, phase, energy), how can integrated information or dual-aspect information (dogmatically assumed to exist) be encoded in these purely physical attributes and carried to the brain?
The Pūrvapakṣin-1 asserts that the general acceptance of EII by neuroscientists is not a sufficient answer, as the discussion is examining the fundamentals of DAS.
Siddhāntin's Response
Dear Pūrvapakṣin-1,
The Siddhāntin appreciates your continued engagement and critical feedback on the Dual-Aspect State (DAS) hypothesis within the DPV~ICRDAM framework. The points raised are fundamental to understanding the nature of reality as proposed. The Siddhāntin will address each query directly and concisely.
1. Regarding the Counterintuitive Nature of DAS (Response to 1.0 A-D):
The Siddhāntin acknowledges that the concept of DAS—where subjective (s) and non-subjective (ns) aspects, despite their outwardly diametrically opposite properties, co-exist and co-arise from the same state of an entity at the same time and under the same conditions—is indeed counterintuitive from the perspective of classical macro-physical observations, Sankhya, and conventional intuition. This perceived "bizarre" nature arises precisely because DPV~ICRDAM posits an ontological unity that transcends the common understanding of separate entities and sequential manifestations.
The examples cited by Pūrvapakṣin-1 (EM field to particle/wave, coin head/tail) describe phenomena within a classical, substance-dualistic framework, where distinct entities or states are required for different manifestations. In contrast, DAS proposes that the "private" subjective domain and the "public" non-subjective domain are two complementary ways of describing the same underlying dual-aspect state of an entity. The apparent "different inherent properties" are precisely why both aspects are needed to fully understand the DAS, as they represent mutually dependent and necessary descriptions of a single reality.
Regarding how counterintuitive concepts can exist in the macro classical world and be accepted without direct clinching evidence:
· Counterintuitive phenomena exist in science. For example: (1) the belief that the Earth is flat instead of spherical, and (2) the idea that the Sun moves from east to west, reflecting an ancient Earth-centric view rather than the scientific understanding that places the Sun at the center of our solar system. However, we recognize that science provides a more accurate understanding of reality compared to naïve psychology and naive realism.
· Counterintuitive phenomena are not absent from science. Quantum mechanics, for instance, presents many concepts that defy classical intuition, yet are accepted due to rigorous empirical validation and theoretical coherence. While DPV~ICRDAM is not classical physics, it seeks to integrate insights from quantum physics (e.g., observer participation, interdependence) which hint at an inherent relatedness between subjective and non-subjective aspects.
· The demand for "direct, clinching empirical evidence" for the subjective aspect of DAS, especially in inert entities, faces an inherent limitation: the very definition of a subjective experience (s-aspect) is its inherent privacy and non-reducibility to solely objective, third-person measurement7. Therefore, direct, clinching third-person empirical evidence for the intrinsic subjective aspect in every entity is inherently unavailable by definition for phenomena that are qualitative and internal.
· However, the DPV~ICRDAM framework builds its case on converging lines of evidence and logical inferences from diverse fields. These include:
o Theoretical Physics: Interpretations of quantum mechanics that highlight observer participation and interdependence.
o Neuroscience: Robust findings of neural correlates of consciousness (NCC) demonstrating a tight, immediate, and reproducible mapping between non-subjective brain states and subjective experiences. DPV~ICRDAM interprets this not as a correlation between two separate substances, but as the manifestation of two inseparable aspects of a single underlying reality. This 1:1 correlation is interpreted as evidence of inseparability between s and ns aspects, especially given the challenges faced by other metaphysical frameworks and the consistent observations in fMRI/EEG reports.
o Philosophical Traditions: Dual-aspect monism (e.g., Spinoza, Strawson) provides a robust conceptual framework where mental and physical attributes are two aspects of a single substance, inherently addressing the perceived logical incompatibility.
o Contemplative Phenomenology: Direct, first-person experiences in advanced meditative states (samādhi) describe a unity of subjective and objective reality, dissolving conventional distinctions. For instance, the dissolution of observer-observed distinction in Nirvikalpa Samādhi points to the inseparability of subjective and objective aspects. The Brahmi Chetana Samadhi state is interpreted as a unification of subject and object, providing evidence for the inseparability of s and ns aspects. The ultimate identity of the individual self with the entire universe, as found in Upaniṣadic realizations, also supports the fundamental unity and inseparability that DAS aims to articulate.
· Furthermore, the "feeling of attraction and repulsion between opposite and similar charges" and the "function of an entity" can be considered empirical evidence for protoconsciousness. This provides an interpretation that goes beyond mere physical interaction.
2. Regarding Integrated Information Theory (IIT) and Proto-Consciousness (Response to 2.0 I-ii):
The Siddhāntin clarifies the interpretation of IIT within the DPV~ICRDAM framework:
· Information and Consciousness in IIT: IIT (Tononi, 2008) does not simply equate "information" with raw data. Instead, it posits that consciousness is intrinsic, integrated information (Φ), which quantifies the cause-effect power intrinsic to a system and is argued to be isomorphic to its experience. This is a precise theoretical definition within IIT, distinct from mere data or communication. The "integrated information" specifically refers to the structure of phenomenal experience itself.
· Information as Dual-Aspect Entity: Within DPV~ICRDAM, information itself is considered a dual-aspect entity, where proto-consciousness is its subjective aspect. The integrated information (Φ) is intrinsic to the state of the entity or system. This means the specific integrated information of a particular entity's state would change or cease with the entity's dissolution or change in state, emphasizing the inseparability of information and the entity's state.
· Protoconsciousness: DPV~ICRDAM's concept of protoconsciousness is that the potentiality of consciousness is a fundamental intrinsic property of ultimate reality. It exists in rudimentary, unmanifested forms even in inert entities. It is not merely a filtered manifestation from a "Cosmic Consciousness" but an inherent aspect of every DAS, providing an ontological basis for the emergence of full consciousness in complex systems. This framework allows for a bottom-up panprotopsychism or a top-down dual-aspect cosmopsychism, where Cosmic Consciousness can individuate into individual consciousness or protoconsciousness in non-living entities.
· Encoding in Light Signals: The critique regarding light signals misunderstands the nature of "integrated information" in this context. While light signals carry physical attributes (frequency, wavelength, phase, energy), the integrated information (Φ) does not reside in the propagating light signal itself in an external, measurable sense. Rather, it isintrinsic to the state of the system that processes this information, such as the brain. The brain, as a complex dual-aspect system, processes the purely physical attributes of the light signal, leading to the emergence of integrated information and conscious subjective experience within its own dual-aspect states. The light signal acts as a carrier of non-subjective information that, upon interaction with a suitable dual-aspect entity, contributes to the formation of integrated information and conscious experience within that entity.
The Siddhāntin maintains that the DPV~ICRDAM framework, while challenging classical intuitions, offers a coherent and comprehensive model for understanding consciousness and reality, drawing on converging evidence from multiple domains.
8. References
Abhinavagupta. Tantrāloka. (10th c. CE). cite_start
Atmanspacher, H., & Rickles, D. (2022). Dual-aspect monism and the deep structure of meaning. Routledge.
Aurobindo, S. (1999). The Life Divine. Sri Aurobindo Ashram Publication Department.
Bekinschtein, T. A., et al. (2011). Selectively preserved consciousness in a patient with the vegetative state. Cambridge NeuroImage Clinical.
Boly, M., et al. (2011). Auditory processing in the vegetative state: An event-related potential study. Brain, 134(2), 346-356.
Boyer, S. (2018). The Big Book of Yoga. Harmony. [Chapter 9: The Yoga of Transcendental Meditation (TM)].
Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 1.4.10.
Chalmers, D. (1995). Facing up to the problem of consciousness. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 2(3), 200-219.
Chalmers, D. (1996). The conscious mind. Oxford University Press.
Chalmers, D. (2003). Consciousness and its Place in Nature, In S. Stich & T. Warfield, eds, Blackwell Guide to Philosophy of Mind (Blackwell, 2003)< https://consc.net/papers/nature.pdf >
Chalmers, D. (2013). Panpsychism and panprotopsychism. The Amherst Lecture in Philosophy, 8, 1-35. [Reprinted in Consciousness and its place in nature, 2015, pp. 246-276?]
Strawson, G. (2006a). Consciousness and its place in nature. In A. Freeman (Ed.), Consciousness and its place in nature (pp. 3-98). Imprint Academic.[v] Book: Consciousness and Its Place in Nature: Does Physicalism Entail Panpsychism? <https://www.amazon.com/Consciousness-Its-Place-Nature-Physicalism/dp/1845400593>
[iii] The 32 framework-selection criteria compiled from various sources (Vimal, 2023) are as follows:
[iv]
[10] There are 12 justifications for inseparability.[iv] The name should include 13 justifications, in addition to inseparability, and complementarity. We have listed 15 justifications for the best name for the relationship between s and ns aspects.
Here is a comprehensive name suggestion along with 15 justifications that incorporate inseparability, complementarity, conventional and ultimate realities and the unique aspects described by the 12 original justifications.
A suggested name for the relationship between s and ns aspects of a dual-aspect state of an entity for DPV~ICRDAM is as follows:
The <1-1 Inseparable and Complementary Reflective Dual-Aspect Monistic Correspondence (1-1_ICRDMC)> is the relationship between s and ns aspects of a dual-aspect state of an entity for DPV~ICRDAM.
15 Justifications for the Name
1. Inseparability (Justification 1): The relationship solves the hard problem of consciousness by ensuring inseparability between s and ns aspects of the same state of the same entity.
2. Complementarity (New Justification): s and ns aspects complement each other by providing distinct yet harmonious perspectives within a unified dual-aspect framework.
3. Monistic Parsimony (Justification 2): By preserving monism, the framework adheres to the principle of Occam’s Razor, enhancing scientific viability.
4. Primal Source (Justification 3): Both s and ns aspects originate from the primal dual-aspect substrate, such as the UIEF/UEIF (unified informational-energy/energetic-information field).
5. Stimulus Integration (Justification 4): Effective information transformation from the physical stimulus supports the inseparable link between the aspects.
6. Effective Integrated Information (EII) (Justification 5): Identical EII is reflected across both aspects, indicating inseparability.
7. Energy-Information Relationship (Justification 6): Effective energy likely corresponds identically in both aspects due to the energy-information relationship.
8. Reflective Correspondence (Justification 7): Any change in one aspect immediately and faithfully reflects in the other, demonstrating a 1:1 bidirectional relationship.
9. Empirical Evidence (Justification 8): There is no empirical evidence supporting the separability between s and ns aspects of the same state of the same entity.
10. Ecological Consistency (Justification 9): The inseparability aligns with principles observed in ecosystem ecology.
11. Resolution of Dualism Challenges (Justification 10): The relationship resolves the association problem of Cartesian and Sāṅkhya dualism by rejecting separability.
12. Empirical Dual-Source Data (Justification 11): Robust and reproducible subjective (1pp) and objective (3pp) data support inseparability.
13. Higher Scientific Viability (Justification 12): Dual-aspect monism with inseparable aspects aligns with the parsimony principle better than dualism-based frameworks.
14. 1-1_ICRDM Correspondence (1-1_ICRDMC) Category-Theoretic Formalism (New Justification): The formal definition using category theory and mathematical structures underscores the inseparability and complementarity between s and ns aspects in the same state.
15. A dual-aspect state (DAS), characterized by its inseparable and complementary subjective (s) and non-subjective (ns) aspects, is dynamic and evolves over time. The apparent duality between s and ns exists at the dualistic conventional level, which is mind-dependent realitiy (CMDR), rather than at the monistic ultimate level, which pertains to mind-independent reality (UMIR). In simpler terms, while s and ns aspects may appear separable and dualistic at the conventional level—manifesting as the distinction between subject and object, between s and ns aspects, or between first-person (1pp) and third-person perspectives (3pp)—they are fundamentally inseparable and complementary at the ultimate level.
For instance, at the conventional level, the Earth appears flat and the Sun appears to move across the sky from east to west (an earth-centric perspective), whereas at the ultimate level, the Sun is central and the planets orbit around it (a sun-centric view). This distinction clarifies why dualistic Sāṅkhya may seem valid at the conventional level (Vyoharik Satya), while DPV~ICRDAM holds true at the ultimate level (parmarthik Satya).[iv]
[v] For the last five years philosopher Galen Strawson has provoked a mixture of shock and scepticism with his carefully argued case that physicalism (the view that every real, concrete phenomenon in the universe is physical) entails panpsychism (the view that the existence of every real concrete thing involves experiential being). In this book Strawson provides the fullest and most careful statement of his position to date, throwing down the gauntlet to his critics ― including Peter Carruthers, Frank Jackson, David Rosenthal and J.J.C. Smart ― by inviting them to respond in print. The book concludes with Strawson's response to his commentators. Galen Strawson's books include Mental Reality, The Self? and Freedom and Belief.
Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal
<rlpvimal@yahoo.co.in>Hi Everyone,
We are now moving forward into the fifth round of discussions.
We appreciate your feedback and constructive comments.
10. Fifth Round of Discussion: Responding to Detailed Critiques of the Dual-Aspect State Hypothesis in the DPV~ICRDAM Framework
1. Abstract
This paper addresses comprehensive feedback from Pūrvapakṣin-1 concerning the Dual-Aspect State (DAS) hypothesis, which forms the bedrock of the DPV~ICRDAM (spirituality-based Dvi-Pakṣādvaita Vedānta ~ (equivalent to) science-based Inseparable-Complementary-Reflective Dual-Aspect Monism) framework. The critique raises fundamental questions regarding the empirical validation and logical coherence of DAS in both elementary particles and the brain, as well as its claimed foundations in science and spirituality. This response systematically dissects each specific issue, synthesizing established scientific concepts, philosophical arguments, and contemplative insights to elucidate the DPV~ICRDAM perspective, affirming its capacity to integrate subjective experience and objective reality within a unified ontological framework.
2. Introduction
The DPV~ICRDAM framework proposes that every entity, ranging from fundamental particles to conscious beings to the whole psychophysical universe (PPU), exists as a dual-aspect state (DAS) embodying inseparable, complementary, and reflective subjective (s) and non-subjective (ns) aspects (Vimal, 2023, 2024a, 2024b, 2025a, 2025b). This integrative approach seeks to bridge the chasm between scientific materialism and spiritual traditions. The critical feedback provided by Pūrvapakṣin-1 offers a valuable opportunity to elaborate upon the nuances of the DAS hypothesis and clarify its theoretical and empirical underpinnings. The following sections provide a structured response to each of the specific issues raised, reinforcing the conceptual robustness and explanatory power of DPV~ICRDAM.
3. List of Issues Raised
The critical feedback systematically challenged the DPV~ICRDAM framework, focusing on the empirical and logical foundations of its core hypothesis, the Dual-Aspect State (DAS). The specific issues can be summarized as follows:
· Overall Critique (Rounds 1-3): The assertion that DAS and the entire DPV~ICRDAM framework represent an unproven, logically invalid, and dogmatic personal belief system, lacking empirical validation from science, spirituality, or philosophical metaphysics.
· Methodological Concern (Rounds 1-3): The contention that it is premature to discuss bridging science and spirituality until DAS is empirically and logically proven, and that the ongoing discussion across new threads breaks continuity.
The specific issues that require clarification are:
A. Rounds 1-3 Issues:
Issue 1: Empirical Evidence for DAS in Elementary Particles.
The critique questions the empirical proof for a subjective aspect (protoconsciousness, protoC) in electrons/photons and whether its changes commensurately with non-subjective alterations.
Issue 2: DAS in the Brain from fMRI Studies.
The argument that a 1:1 correlation observed in fMRI studies does not prove DAS in the brain, citing an inherent mismatch between the public, quantifiable nature of the brain and the private, non-quantifiable nature of subjective experiences.
Issue 3: Logical Incompatibility of Non-subjective (ns) and Subjective (s) Aspects.
The assertion that ns and s aspects cannot be complementary or co-exist in a DAS due to their fundamentally different inherent properties (e.g., non-subjective vs. subjective, public vs. private).
Issue 4: Comprehensive Lack of Empirical Evidence and Logical Consistency.
A concluding point that there is no empirical evidence for DAS in particles or the brain, and that the assumption of DAS is logically untenable.
Issue 5: Quantum Mechanics, Observer's Role, and DAS-DAS Interactions.
The claim that the observer's role in Quantum Mechanics (QM) does not prove DAS, and that DAS-DAS interactions are infeasible due to the private nature of the subjective aspect and a perceived lack of observed s-s interactions between brains.
Issue 6: Neuroscientific Correlates and DAS in the Brain.
The reiteration that strong correlations between the brain's non-subjective structure (Neural Correlates of Consciousness - NCC) and subjective experiences do not prove DAS in the brain, again emphasizing the property mismatch.
Issue 7: Critique of Integrated Information Theory (IIT) as Support for DAS.
This issue identifies three specific "mistakes" in interpreting IIT as evidence for DAS:
§ Mistake 1: Misconstruing "information" in IIT as "consciousness" or "experience".
§ Mistake 2: Assuming an inseparability of information and entities, arguing that laws of physics remain invariant regardless of entity changes.
§ Mistake 3: Rejecting the concept of "protoconsciousness," stating that consciousness is always "ever manifested awakened" and filters down from a Cosmic Consciousness.
Issue 8: Nirvikalpa Samādhi as Evidence for DAS. The argument that Nirvikalpa Samādhi signifies union with Cosmic Consciousness (CC) and does not infer DAS or the inseparability of subjective consciousness and non-subjective matter/energy.
Issue 9: Upaniṣadic Realizations as Evidence for DAS. The assertion that Upaniṣadic statements like "Ahaṁ brahmāsmi" imply the sole ontological reality of Cosmic Consciousness/Brahman, with no inference for DAS involving non-subjective matter/energy.
Issue 10: Kashmir Śaivism as Evidence for DAS. The claim that Kashmir Śaivism does not specifically state DAS for the brain or a stone, and that the concept of a "stone having DAS" contradicts the nature of Shiva's infinite powers.
Issue 11: Neo-Vedantic Realizations as Evidence for DAS. The argument that Neo-Vedantists like Ramana Maharshi and Sri Aurobindo likely accepted an immortal conscious soul, reincarnation, and Karmic law, views considered incompatible with DAS.
Issue 12: Spinoza's Dual-Aspect Monism as Support for DAS. The contention that thinking (subjective) and objects (non-subjective) cannot co-exist in the same state without empirical evidence for their DAS co-existence.
Issue 13: Strawson's Realistic Monism as Support for DAS. The assertion that Strawson's views face the same limitations as Spinoza's regarding the co-existence of object and proto-experience.
Issue 14: DPV~ICRDAM Framework's Reflective Symmetry. The critique that the framework's "reflective symmetry" between s and ns aspects is merely functional symmetry, not ontological symmetry, and that ontological inseparability leading to DAS is unsupported by evidence or logical consistency.
Issue 15: Demand for Direct Empirical Evidence of DAS. The challenge to provide robust direct empirical clinching evidence for DAS, specifically for the co-existence of physical and subjective proto-consciousness with diametrically opposite inherent natures and properties in the same state of the same entity; and for DAS meaning the arising and existence of two quite opposite aspects (physical and subjective consciousness) from one state of an entity at the same time under the same conditions.
Issue 16: Analogical Challenge to the Co-arising of Dissimilar Aspects. A challenge to cite even a single instance in the entire universe where two similar aspects can arise/manifest from the same state of the same entity at the same time under the same conditions, arguing that if this cannot be shown, then two dissimilar aspects cannot either.
Issue 17: Counter-intuitive Nature of DAS. The assertion that DAS is fundamentally counter-intuitive due to the co-existence of totally opposite aspects in the same state and their simultaneous arising from one state, arguing that counter-intuitive phenomena require clinching evidence, which indirect interpretations like correlation do not provide.
Issue 18: Correlation vs. Inseparability. The reiteration that tight 1:1 correlation between two aspects/entities (e.g., physical neural activities and subjective consciousness) does not prove inseparability, as numerous instances of correlation without inseparability exist.
Issue 19: Specific Questions on "Counter-intuitiveness." Two direct questions:
§ If the co-existence of physical and subjective, publicly existing and privately existing, outbound and inbound, discrete and non-discrete (holistic), measurable and non-measurable, quantifiable and non-quantifiable aspects in the same state of the same entity is not counter-intuitive, then what is counter-intuitive?
§ If the birth/arising of two aspects from a single state of the same entity at the same time under the same conditions is not counter-intuitive, then what else is called counter-intuitive?
B. Round 4 Issues:
Issue 20: DAS is Counterintuitive/Bizarre. The critique that DAS contradicts normal macro-classical intuition regarding:
§ (1a) One state, one aspect (even if similar).
§ (1b) One state, one arising aspect (sequential change for new aspect).
§ (1c) Arising aspects of same essential nature.
§ These points are contrasted with Siddhāntin's DAS proposal (1d) where two diametrically opposite aspects (public/physical and private/subjective consciousness) arise simultaneously from a single state.
§ Specific queries (A-D) on why DAS is not counterintuitive, how counterintuitive concepts exist in the macro world, how they are accepted without direct clinching evidence, and where such evidence for DAS exists.
Issue 21: No Indirect Evidence for DAS or Proto-Consciousness (ProtoC) from Tononi's Effective Integrated Information (EII) Theory. The critique challenges the validity of inferring DAS/ProtoC from IIT based on:
§ The argument that "information" requires quantifiable parameters, which subjective consciousness lacks, thus invalidating EII and ProtoC.
§ Specific queries (I-II) on how indirect evidence for DAS can be inferred from EII if it's invalid, and how dual-aspect information can be encoded in purely physical attributes of light signals.
C. Round 5 Issues:
Issue 22. [Siddhāntin: 29-July-2025]
In consciousness-less materialism-based models have (Levine, 1983)’s explanatory gap problem, except Orch-OR, which is based on neutral monism. We suggest including dualism, idealism, and dual-aspect monism-based models as well if you are really interested in consciousness research.
In physics, we assume that elementary particles and their composites are made up of consciousness-less matter. Is that really the case? Are our brains also merely consciousness-less matter? How do we eliminate the possibility that they could be proto-conscious matter (Chit-Padārtha)? Silicon chips in AIs might be dual-aspect entities. We should consider both possibilities in our models, and, hopefully, one of them will be rejected as we progress.
Issue 23. [Pūrvapakṣin-1's Paraphrased Concerns]:
Pūrvapakṣin-1 expresses significant doubts about the Dual-Aspect State (DAS) hypothesis within the DPV~ICRDAM framework. The core concern is that DAS, as proposed to exist at all levels of reality (from fundamental particles to the brain), is merely a speculative assumption by Siddhāntin. It is argued that DAS lacks any verifiable support from science, spiritual traditions, or logical reasoning, even indirectly.
Furthermore, Pūrvapakṣin-1 identifies major issues stemming from the DAS concept:
§ The concepts of integrated information (as per Tononi) and dual-aspect information (as per Chalmers) are seen as misinterpretations adopted by Siddhāntin without sufficient critical evaluation.
§ There's a challenge regarding how a DAS of one entity could interact with the DAS of another.
§ A question is raised about the mechanism of transferring dual-aspect information between systems, particularly in the absence of discrete, quantifiable parameters for the dual aspect.
Issue 24. [Vichāraka-6's Paraphrased Commentary on Idea Exchange and Intelligence]:
§ Vichāraka-6 acknowledges some understanding of the general idea behind how thoughts or information might be encoded and shared between individuals, even if the precise context or assumptions are unclear. He emphasizes that the exchange of ideas is a crucial topic in systems neuroscience, especially concerning mammal brains, including humans.
§ He highlights a historical "Great Duality" in scientific thought:
Old School (Chomsky/Pinker): Proposes a hardwired "Deep Structure" for natural language, granting humans a unique, superior level of intelligence compared to other mammals.
Alternative View (Skinner/Pavlov): Assumes universal learning laws apply to all mammals and vertebrates, suggesting a more gradual difference in intelligence (e.g., snails thinking similarly but slower).
Vichāraka-6 then references a "great revolution" inspired by M.E. Bitterman's work, which revealed fundamental qualitative differences in intelligence levels across vertebrate classes. This led to his own work, including an independent study for Minsky on AI development, focusing on symbolic reasoning in human brains.
However, Vichāraka-6, along with colleagues like Walter Freeman and Laurens van der Post, developed a contrasting perspective. They were impressed by van der Post's observations of "bushman dance," which demonstrated how EXPERIENCE and NONVERBAL UNDERSTANDING were transmitted through performance and mirror neurons (shared with monkeys but uniquely enhanced in humans for empathy). This suggests human intelligence involves a unique capacity for dance and assimilation, indicating a form of empathy beyond direct visual experience.
He concludes by suggesting that more recent understanding indicates some toothed cetaceans (dolphins, whales, orcas) might have evolved even higher empathy capabilities. He proposes that human logic is something learned and emulated, hinting that deeper understanding, such as "qi," is also possible.
4. Analysis of Criticisms
This section systematically addresses each of the critiques, elaborating on the DPV~ICRDAM perspective and providing counter-arguments.
A. Round 1-3 Responses:
1. General Critique: DAS as a Personal Dogmatic Belief & Lack of Evidence (Issues 1, 2, 4)
The overarching critique asserts that DAS and the entire DPV~ICRDAM framework constitute an unproven, logically invalid, and dogmatic personal belief system due to a perceived absence of direct empirical validation from science, spirituality, or philosophical metaphysics. It also notes that the ongoing discussion across new threads breaks continuity.
The DPV~ICRDAM framework is presented as a testable hypothesis and a coherent ontological model, not a dogma. While direct, conventional empirical measurement of the subjective aspect in non-living systems remains beyond current scientific tools, DPV~ICRDAM builds its case on converging lines of evidence and logical inferences derived from diverse fields, including:
o Theoretical Physics: Interpretations of quantum mechanics (QM) that highlight observer participation and interdependence (Fuchs, 2010; Rovelli, 1996) provide a conceptual space for the inherent relatedness of subjective and non-subjective aspects, even if QM itself doesn't explicitly name "DAS".
o Neuroscience: The robust empirical findings of neural correlates of consciousness (NCC) demonstrate a tight, immediate, and reproducible mapping between non-subjective brain states and subjective experiences (Koch, 2004). DPV~ICRDAM interprets this not as a correlation between two separate substances, but as the manifestation of two inseparable aspects of a single underlying reality.
o Philosophical Traditions: Dual-aspect monism (Spinoza, 1677; Strawson, 2006; Atmanspacher & Rickles, 2022) provides a robust conceptual framework where mental and physical attributes are two aspects of a single substance, inherently addressing the perceived logical incompatibility.
o Contemplative Phenomenology: Direct, first-person experiences reported in advanced meditative states (samādhi) describe a unity of subjective and objective reality, dissolving conventional distinctions (Aurobindo, 1999; Maharshi, 2006).
Therefore, the claim of "no evidence" is challenged by a multi-faceted approach to evidence and inference that extends beyond what conventional empiricism alone might capture. The continuity of discussion is also maintained by systematically addressing all points raised across communications. Furthermore, the DPV~ICRDAM framework explains over 232 Brahma Sutras in 17 volumes (each 450-800 pages) covering over 40 Vedantic and non-Vedantic frameworks, for the first time in over 6000 years, demonstrating a comprehensive theoretical foundation. It also bridges over 40 Vedantic and non-Vedantic frameworks, including Neo-Sāṅkhya (Vimal, 2024b, Volume 3.2, Section 78), Neo-Vaiśeṣika (Vimal, 2024b, Volume 3.2, Section 79), Neo-Buddhism (Vimal, 2024b, Volume 3.2, Section 85-86), Neo-Jainism (Vimal, 2024b, Volume 3.2, Section 79), Neo-Pāśupata (Vimal, 2024b, Volume 3.2, Section 89), Neo-Bhāgavata-Pāñcarātra (Vimal, 2024b, Section 91), Neo-
2. Dual-Aspect State in Elementary Particles (Electron/Photon) (Issue 1)
The critique challenges the empirical proof of a subjective aspect (consciousness) in electrons/photons and a commensurate change in it with non-subjective alterations.
DPV~ICRDAM posits that elementary particles possess a proto-conscious (protoC) or intrinsic subjective aspect (s-aspect), which is an inherent quality, not a separately measurable entity with current tools (Vimal, 2023, 2025a). This aligns with panpsychist perspectives that attribute primitive forms of experience to fundamental physical entities (Goff, 2017; Strawson, 2006). The "commensurate change" is a definitional property of the DAS: any change in the non-subjective (ns) aspect is ontologically reflected in the s-aspect, and vice versa, as they are inseparable and complementary aspects of the same state (Vimal, 2023, 2025a). This is a theoretical assertion about the intrinsic nature of reality, inferred from the difficulty of explaining consciousness from purely physical properties and the need for a unified theory. The "feeling of attraction and repulsion between opposite and similar charges" and the "function of an entity" can indeed be considered as empirical evidence for protoconsciousness (Vimal, 2025a), providing an interpretation beyond mere physical interaction (Empedocles).
3. Dual-Aspect State in the Brain and Inherent Property Mismatch (Issues 5 and 6)
The critique argues that the brain, being public, quantifiable, and discrete, cannot harbor private, non-quantifiable, holistic subjective experiences in a DAS. The 1:1 correlation in fMRI is acknowledged but not as proof of DAS; an analogy of a projector showing a rose image is used to illustrate correlation without DAS.
DPV~ICRDAM proposes that the "private" and "public" domains are two complementary ways of describing the same underlying dual-aspect state of the brain (Vimal, 2023, 2025a). The subjective experience (s-aspect) is the intrinsic, qualitative feel, while the neural activity (ns-aspect) is the extrinsic, structural manifestation. The "holistic" nature of experience versus the "discrete" nature of neural activity does not preclude DAS; rather, it highlights the challenge of describing a unified, intrinsic reality using only extrinsic, discrete measurements. The correlation observed in NCC (Koch, 2004) is precisely the empirical signature of this inseparability and reflection in living systems. The projector analogy, while useful for demonstrating correlation without identity, relies on a classical, substance-dualistic framework including Sankhya where the projector, image, and rose are distinct entities. In contrast, DAS posits an ontological unity where the subjective and non-subjective are fundamentally unified aspects of the same state of the brain itself (Vimal, 2023, 2025a). The "emergent reality" of the image on the screen in the analogy is indeed an emergent property; DPV~ICRDAM similarly views manifested consciousness as an emergent property from the interaction of the brain's complex DAS elements through DAS-DAS interactions. In DPV~ICRDAM, the observed 1:1 correlation between conscious subjective experiences (CSE) and neural-physical activities/basis (NPA/NPB) is interpreted as evidence of inseparability between s and ns aspects. Given that other metaphysical frameworks face significant challenges, and DPV~ICRDAM satisfies 32 criteria for framework selection (Vimal, 2023a) and numerous fMRI/EEG reports consistently show this correlation without separability, inseparability remains the most valid interpretation. In other words, the DAS of an observer with CSE as s-aspect and NPA/NPB as ns-aspect is a manifested state. Therefore, there is no category mistake and the 1-1 correlation is interpreted as the inseparability between s and ns aspects.
Since (i) all other metaphysics have serious problems, (ii) only DPV~ICRDAM satisfy 32 criteria of framework selection (Vimal, 2023a) and hence ranks the highest, and (iii) none of the 100s of fMRI/EEG report show separability, there is no other valid interpretation of 1-1 correlation except inseparability between s and ns aspects of a DAS of an observer.
4. Logical Incompatibility of ns and s & Complementarity (Issue 3)
The critique states that non-subjective (ns) and subjective (s) aspects cannot be complementary because they have fundamentally different inherent properties (non-subjective vs. subjective, public vs. private, quantifiable vs. non-quantifiable, outbound vs. inbound). It also argues that true complementary aspects (like wave-particle duality) exist under different conditions, unlike the co-manifestation in ICRDAM.
In DPV~ICRDAM, "complementarity" refers to a relationship of mutual dependence and mutual necessity for a complete description of a single underlying reality, rather than requiring identical properties or manifesting under different conditions (Vimal, 2023, 2025a). The very "different inherent properties" are precisely why both aspects are needed to fully understand the DAS. As Atmanspacher and Rickles (2022) discuss, complementarity in a broader sense can apply to non-commuting properties of a single system, where knowledge of one aspect precludes simultaneous precise knowledge of the other, yet both are essential for the system's full description. DPV~ICRDAM asserts that the ns and s aspects co-manifest simultaneously within every DAS, reflecting each other in a non-causal ontological relation (Vimal, 2023, 2025a). This is a core feature of its dual-aspect monism, differing from wave-particle duality, which describes different modes of observation of a quantum entity. While ns and s aspects appear distinct in conventional, mind-dependent Saguna Brahman (SB) reality, they are both integral parts of cosmic SB; so both are Brahman. However, at the fundamental ultimate Nirguna Brahman (NB) reality, they are all NB (Nirguna Brahman); so they are the same Elemental Intrinsic Information (EII) patterns because EII is identical in both s and ns aspects.
5. Integrated Information Theory (IIT) and Proto-Consciousness (Issue 7)
The critique identifies three "gross mistakes" in interpreting IIT as evidence for DAS: 1) misconstruing "information" in IIT as "consciousness" or "experience"; 2) assuming inseparability of information and entities; and 3) the concept of protoconsciousness as a misnomer, arguing consciousness is always "ever manifested awakened" from a cosmic source.
o 1. Information as Consciousness: IIT (Tononi, 2008) does not merely equate information with consciousness; rather, it posits that consciousness is intrinsic, integrated information (Φ) (Vimal, 2022). The measure Φ quantifies the cause-effect power intrinsic to a system, which is argued to be isomorphic to its experience (Tononi, 2008). This is a precise theoretical definition within IIT, distinguishing it from mere data or communication, as in the laptop/EM wave analogy. The "integrated information" is about the structure of phenomenal experience itself. The statement that "information is dual-aspect entity; (proto)consciousness is s-aspect of information" clarifies that within DPV~ICRDAM, information itself is seen as having dual aspects, where proto-consciousness is its subjective aspect.
o 2. Inseparability of Information and Entities: In IIT and DPV~ICRDAM, the integrated information (Φ) is intrinsic to the state of the entity or system (Vimal, 2022, 2023, 2025a). While universal laws like gravitation are abstract patterns that persist, the specific integrated information of a particular entity's state would indeed change or cease with the entity's dissolution or change in state. The inseparability refers to the intrinsic, moment-to-moment experience of that specific configuration, not universal laws. In DPV~ICRDAM, information is also considered an entity, and its subjective and non-subjective aspects are inseparable, complementary, and reflective.
o 3. Protoconsciousness: DPV~ICRDAM's concept of proto-consciousness is that the potentiality of consciousness is a fundamental intrinsic property of ultimate NB reality. It exists in rudimentary, unmanifested forms even in inert entities as proto-consciousness (Vimal, 2023, 2025a). It is not merely a filtered manifestation from a "Cosmic Consciousness" (CC) but an inherent aspect of every DAS. While the manifestation of complex, "awakened" consciousness requires sophisticated neural structures, the underlying proto-consciousness is omnipresent, providing an ontological basis for the emergence of full consciousness (Vimal, 2025a). This differs from views (such as the problematic consciousness-first view) where consciousness only flows from a higher, distinct cosmic source (such as non-interactive dualistic Sankhya that has 14 unresolvable problems). In the DPV~ICRDAM framework, protoconsciousness can arise from a bottom-up panprotopsychism approach, or in a top-down dual-aspect cosmopsychism, where Cosmic Consciousness (CC) individuates or decombines into Individual Consciousness (IC) or ADS in living entities, and into individual protoconsciousness in non-living entities.
6. Samādhi-State Evidence and Inseparability (Issues 8, 9, 10, 11)
The critique largely dismisses samādhi experiences (Nirvikalpa Samādhi), Upaniṣadic realizations ("Ahaṁ brahmāsmi"), Kashmir Śaivism, and Neo-Vedantic realizations (Ramana, Aurobindo) as evidence for DAS. Arguments include: NS implies union with CC, not s-ns inseparability; Upaniṣads assert ontological reality of CC only, not ns matter; Kashmir Śaivism does not specifically state DAS for brain/stone (and breaking a stone would imply breaking Shiva); and Ramana/Aurobindo accepted an immortal soul, reincarnation, and karma, which are incompatible with DAS. The common thread is that these traditions accept a conscious soul, eliminating the need for DAS in the brain.
DPV~ICRDAM interprets these spiritual insights as supportive of DAS by emphasizing the non-dual nature of ultimate reality, where subject and object are fundamentally unified.
o Nirvikalpa Samādhi: The dissolution of observer-observed distinction in Nirvikalpa Samādhi (NS) strongly points to the inseparability of subjective and objective aspects, as they merge into a unified experience (Vimal, 2025a). This critique, based on Sankhya or Vedanta's Saguna Brahman, misinterprets the experience; in DPV~ICRDAM, it is a unification of subject and object, where the object is represented in the brain’s neural-physical activities/basis (NPA/NPB) as the ns-aspect. Whatever yogis experience in Nirvikalpa Samādhi State (NSS) is called CC or pureC, but in neuroscience, it is a conscious subjective experience (CSE) with its own specific and inseparable NPA/NPB. Therefore, it is valid to interpret that the s and ns aspects of the NSS of a yogi are inseparably unified, supporting the doctrine of inseparability.
o Brahmi Chetana Samadhi (bcs): In the Brahmi Chetana Samadhi (bcs) state of TM, "Unity consciousness—object and subject are one; the environment is nothing other than the universal Self" (Boyer, 2018). The DPV~ICRDAM interprets this as follows: ADS (subject) and environment (object) appear to be unified. In DPV~ICRDAM, the subject is represented as dual-aspect (DA) ADS with self-related (sr) DASsr. An object is represented in the brain as a stimulus-dependent feed-forward (ff) signal, which interacts (DASffÄDASfb) with a cognitive feedback (fb) signal through a matching/nonmatching and selection process to create a conscious DASc, which represents the object. At bcs state, DASsrÄDASc, which leads to unified DASbcs with s and ns aspects. In other words, this is clinching evidence for the explanation of the bcs state unification.
o Upaniṣadic Realizations: "Ahaṁ brahmāsmi" (I am Brahman) and "Sarvaṁ khalvidaṁ brahma" (All this is Brahman) point to the ultimate identity of the individual self (subjective) with the entire universe (objective) and with the ultimate reality (Brahman) (Maitrī Upaniṣad VI.28). This realization of fundamental unity and inseparability between self, world, and ultimate reality is precisely what the DAS hypothesis aims to articulate (Vimal, 2025a). The critic's misunderstanding stems from applying a Sankhya viewpoint; in DPV~ICRDAM, both Nirguna Brahman (NB) and Saguna Brahman (SB) include both aspects at NSS, experienced as unified, meaning their Elemental Intrinsic Information (EII) is identical. The s and ns aspects are simply different points of view (1st person perspective and 3rd person perspective) of the same EII. NSS is considered one of the best DASs where yogis can experience both perspectives as identical, confirming both are Brahman. The author (Siddhāntin) has attained the samadhi state through 127 steps of Jñāna yoga, as elaborated in Vimal (2025b, Section 3), and found that NB is indeed the source, and DPV~ICRDAM is a valid framework. It is important to understand that Jñāna yoga is based on 127 steps and different from other yogic methods such as Raja yoga, Bhakti yoga, Karma yoga, and Premyoga (as in GV), where CSE at NSS is mandatory.
o Kashmir Śaivism (KS): KS emphasizes that the world is a reflection of Śiva-consciousness, meaning no object (ns) exists without Cit (s-aspect) reflecting in it (Abhinavagupta, Tantrāloka). The world is seen as conscious and participatory, interpenetrating with the experiencer (Rastogi, 1996). The "stone breaking Shiva" argument misinterprets the nature of the "s-aspect" in non-living entities; it is not a vulnerable, separate "Shiva" that breaks but an intrinsic, fundamental quality of the unified reality that manifests as the stone's DAS. The subjective aspect is not a separable entity but an inherent characteristic of the non-subjective. In Kashmir Śaivism, Shiva and Shakti are explicitly inseparable, a concept exemplified by the ArdhNariEshwar system.
o Neo-Vedanta (Ramana, Aurobindo): Their reports of "integral awareness where matter and consciousness are one" directly support the inseparability and complementarity of s and ns aspects, suggesting a proto-subjective depth even in matter, perceptible in enlightened states (Aurobindo, 1999; Maharshi, 2006; Vimal, 2025a). While these traditions typically accept an immortal soul, reincarnation, and karma, DPV~ICRDAM provides a framework where these concepts can be viewed as dynamics within the overarching dual-aspect reality, rather than a contradiction to DAS itself (Vimal, 2025a). The "conscious soul" can be understood as the s-aspect of a higher-level, more complex DAS. Notably, these spiritual masters have recognized that even inert entities like a stone possess a dual-aspect Saguna Brahman (SB) and hence a DAS, as documented in their works (e.g., Maharaj, 2017).
7. Philosophical Support & Logical Tenability (Issues 12, 13, 14)
The critique suggests that philosophical positions like Spinoza's Dual-Aspect Monism and Strawson's Realistic Monism also fail due to the inherent incompatibility of thinking/experiential and non-subjective attributes. Furthermore, it distinguishes "functional symmetry" (where ns is necessary for s and vice versa) from "ontological symmetry" (co-arising and co-existence in the same state), arguing DPV~ICRDAM only achieves functional symmetry and confuses the two.
o Spinoza and Strawson: These philosophers explicitly articulate frameworks where mental (thinking/experiential) and physical (extension/physical properties) are attributes of a single underlying substance or reality (Spinoza, 1677; Strawson, 2006). This is precisely the conceptual foundation for DPV~ICRDAM's DAS, directly addressing the "logical inconsistency" by proposing a unified ground for these seemingly disparate properties. Their arguments show the necessity of a dual-aspect ontology to avoid substance dualism's interaction problem. There are hundreds of empirical pieces of evidence, including reports from Nirvikalpa Samādhi states, that consistently show the inseparability of these aspects, rather than their distinctness.
o Functional vs. Ontological Symmetry: DPV~ICRDAM posits ontological inseparability as foundational for the DAS, meaning that the s-aspect and ns-aspect co-arise and co-exist as intrinsic properties of the same state of an entity (Vimal, 2023, 2025a). "Functional symmetry" (the observable tight correlation and interdependence) is seen as a manifestation or empirical consequence of this deeper ontological inseparability (Vimal, 2023). Therefore, DPV~ICRDAM explicitly claims and supports ontological inseparability, with functional symmetry as its observable correlate in conscious systems. While conscious manifestation (functional inseparability in the usual sense) is specific to living entities, the underlying DAS and proto-consciousness are universal, providing a basis even for inert matter (Vimal, 2025a). The reflective symmetry in DPV~ICRDAM is indeed valid functionally, ontologically, and epistemologically. It supports DAS and DPV~ICRDAM, particularly when understood through a deeper engagement, such as the 127 steps of Jñāna yoga or the mathematical formulation presented in Vimal (2025a, Section 1). This establishes a 1-1 Inseparable and Complementary Reflective Dual-Aspect Monistic Correspondence (1-1_ICRDMC) between the inseparable and complementary subjective (s) and non-subjective (ns) aspects of an entity's dual-aspect state.
8. Direct Empirical Evidence and Counter-intuitive Nature of DAS (Issues 15, 16, 17, 18, 19)
The recent feedback strongly emphasizes the demand for "robust direct empirical clinching evidence" for DAS, particularly given its "counter-intuitive" nature. It challenges the simultaneous co-existence and co-arising of diametrically opposite aspects and questions how a single state can manifest dissimilar aspects. Furthermore, it asserts that correlation, however tight, cannot serve as evidence for such a counter-intuitive phenomenon.
o Demand for "Robust Direct Empirical Clinching Evidence": The demand for direct empirical evidence for the subjective aspect of DAS in all entities, particularly inert ones, highlights a fundamental limitation of third-person scientific methodology when applied to intrinsic, first-person phenomena. The very definition of a subjective experience (s-aspect) is its inherent privacy and non-reducibility to solely objective measurement (Chalmers, 1995). Therefore, direct, clinching third-person empirical evidence for the intrinsic subjective aspect in every entity is inherently unavailable by definition for phenomena that are qualitative and internal. However, the DPV~ICRDAM framework draws its strength from a cumulative case built on:
§ Indirect Empirical Evidence: The robust and consistent neural correlates of consciousness (NCC) (Koch, 2004) represent the tightest possible empirical correlation between brain states and conscious experience. While correlation does not prove causation or inseparability in a classical sense, its sheer consistency and specificity demand an ontological explanation. DPV~ICRDAM offers this explanation by positing that the s and ns are two inseparable aspects of the same underlying reality, where the correlation is a manifestation of this inseparability.
§ Explanatory Power: DAS provides a coherent framework to explain how consciousness arises from physical systems without resorting to substance dualism (which faces the interaction problem) or reductive materialism (which struggles with the "hard problem" of qualia).
§ Philosophical Coherence: Dual-aspect monism (Spinoza, 1677; Strawson, 2006) offers a long-standing philosophical tradition that provides conceptual grounding for the co-existence of mental and physical attributes as aspects of a single substance, addressing the perceived logical inconsistency.
§ First-person Phenomenological Evidence: As discussed under Samādhi states (Issues 8-11), direct subjective experiences of unity and non-duality provide crucial first-person evidence for the inseparability of subjective and objective realms (Aurobindo, 1999; Maharshi, 2006). These are direct experiences, albeit private, that support the non-dual premise.
§ Lack of Evidence for Separability: Is there clinching or any evidence for separability between subjective (s, such as conscious subjective experience: CSE) and non-subjective (ns, such as 1-1 correlated neural-physical activity/basis: NPA/NPB) aspects of a dual-aspect state (DAS) of an entity? If there is none, then inseparability prevails and it would then be considered as clinching evidence of a dual-aspect state (DAS) that has s and ns inseparable, complementary, and reflective aspects. Given that hundreds of fMRI/EEG reports consistently show a 1:1 correlation without separability, and no other metaphysics resolves this issue (Vimal, 2023a), inseparability is the most valid interpretation.
o Arising of Similar vs. Dissimilar Aspects from a Single State (Issue 16): The analogy demanding proof of two similar aspects arising from a single state, then extrapolating to dissimilar ones, misconstrues the concept of "arising" in DAS. In DPV~ICRDAM, the s and ns aspects do not "take birth" or "get manifested" as separate entities from a singular origin point in a temporal or causal sense. Instead, they are inherent, inseparable attributes of the same unified reality or state from its inception. They are not generated; they are the two faces of the coin of existence. For instance, in quantum mechanics, a single electron inherently possesses properties like mass and charge simultaneously, and can manifest as both a wave and a particle depending on the experimental setup (complementarity) (Fuchs, 2010; Rovelli, 1996). While wave and particle are "similar" in being physical descriptions, they are distinct modes of manifestation of the same fundamental entity. More profoundly, any entity is its physical properties, and DPV~ICRDAM posits it is also its intrinsic subjective experience. These are not separate births but intrinsic properties of the fundamental constituent itself.
o Counter-intuitive Nature (Issue 17, 19): DPV~ICRDAM acknowledges that from a classical, common-sense, or dualistic perspective, the co-existence and co-arising of diametrically opposite properties (public/private, quantifiable/non-quantifiable, discrete/holistic) in a single entity is counter-intuitive. However, science, particularly quantum mechanics, is replete with phenomena that defy classical intuition but are empirically verified and theoretically accepted (e.g., wave-particle duality, superposition, entanglement, non-locality) (Fuchs, 2010; Rovelli, 1996). The acceptance of such counter-intuitive phenomena in science relies on their explanatory power and consistent indirect evidence, as direct observation of underlying realities is often impossible. The DPV~ICRDAM framework, while challenging classical intuition, provides a coherent explanation for the hard problem of consciousness and the NCC that other dominant paradigms struggle to account for. Therefore, while counter-intuitive from one perspective, it offers a logical and comprehensive framework from another. The "clinching evidence" for DAS comes from its ability to integrate and explain diverse phenomena across physics, neuroscience, and spiritual experience, providing a unified ontological model.
o Correlation vs. Inseparability (Issue 18): While acknowledging that correlation does not imply causation, DPV~ICRDAM argues that the consistent and specific 1:1 correlation observed between conscious subjective experiences (CSEs) and neural-physical activities/basis (NPA/NPB) in the brain is not merely coincidental but indicative of ontological inseparability. This tight coupling is too consistent and specific to be dismissed as mere correlation. The framework posits that the s-aspect and ns-aspect are two inseparable facets of the same underlying dual-aspect state of the brain. The continuous and precise correspondence is the empirical manifestation of this intrinsic unity. Without positing such an inseparability, the sheer regularity of this correlation remains an unexplained mystery in other metaphysical frameworks.
B. Round 4 Responses:
Dear Pūrvapakṣin-1,
Thank you for your latest message and for initiating this fourth round of discussions. I appreciate your feedback regarding the style and content of my previous response and will strive for greater conciseness and directness as requested. I acknowledge and will adhere to the use of "Siddhāntin" and "Pūrvapakṣin-1" to maintain the traditional style.
Regarding your critical issues on the empirical invalidity of DAS, I will provide direct answers to your specific queries.
1. DAS is Counterintuitive/Bizarre (Issue 1.0):
You've highlighted that the proposal of a Dual-Aspect State (DAS), where public, physical aspects and private, non-physical conscious aspects arise simultaneously from a single state under the same conditions, appears counterintuitive or bizarre when compared to common macro-classical observations (1a, 1b, 1c).
o A) Against the 3 normal intuitive appealing observational facts, as mentioned from 1) a) to 1 c), why the proposal of Siddhāntin for DAS as mentioned at 1) d) should not be considered counterintuitive or even bizarre one?
The DAS proposal is indeed counterintuitive from the perspective of our everyday experience with the macroscopic classical world, where properties often appear as distinct and sequentially manifested. However, the concept of a dual-aspect state addresses phenomena, specifically consciousness, that fundamentally challenge classical intuitions. The "diametrically opposite" aspects (subjective and non-subjective) are not mutually exclusive but are rather complementary perspectives or intrinsic facets of a single underlying reality or state. They are inseparable; one does not arise from the other in a causal or temporal sequence, but both constitute the complete nature of the state simultaneously. This is a profound shift from a fragmented, substance-dualistic view to a unified monistic one.
o B) How any counterintuitive concept or phenomenon can exist in our macro physical classical world?
While our macro classical world generally adheres to intuitive physics, its very foundations, at the quantum level, are profoundly counterintuitive (e.g., superposition, entanglement). The macroscopic world emerges from these quantum realities. Consciousness, though manifested in the macro brain, is widely considered a fundamental mystery that defies purely classical or reductive explanations. If consciousness is indeed rooted in fundamental properties of reality that are not intuitively classical, then its core properties (like s-ns inseparability) could operate at a more fundamental, less intuitively graspable level. The brain, though macroscopic, is a highly complex system whose emergent properties might reflect these underlying non-classical principles.
o C) How any counterintuitive concept/phenomenon can be accepted without some direct clinching evidence of science?
Acceptance of counterintuitive concepts in science is not new and often relies on a confluence of indirect yet consistent and robust empirical evidence, coupled with a powerful explanatory framework that resolves persistent problems. For example, quantum mechanics, despite its counterintuitive nature, is accepted because it consistently explains experimental results and has immense predictive power. For DAS, "direct clinching evidence" for intrinsic subjective aspects is inherently challenging to obtain via third-person methods due to its private nature. However, the extraordinarily tight and consistent Neural Correlates of Consciousness (NCC) represents a powerful form of indirect empirical evidence that strongly suggests an inseparable relationship between brain states and subjective experiences. When alternative explanations (like substance dualism or reductive materialism) face insurmountable challenges, a counterintuitive but unifying theory gains strength.
o D) Where is any direct clinching evidence of science for the DAS as proposed at para 1)d) above?
As noted in C), "direct clinching evidence" in the traditional sense, particularly for the subjective aspect of DAS, is constrained by the very nature of subjectivity. However, the evidence is compelling:
§ The Inseparability Implied by NCC: The consistent 1:1 correlation between specific physical brain activities and specific subjective experiences, observed across numerous studies, defies explanations based on mere correlation or epiphenomenalism. The absence of any empirical evidence for separability between the subjective and non-subjective aspects in a conscious state serves as a powerful argument for their inseparability.
§ Explanatory Power: DAS offers a coherent explanation for the seamless integration of subjective experience with physical reality, addressing the mind-body problem by positing them as two facets of a single reality.
§ First-Person Accounts: Reports from advanced contemplative states (e.g., certain Samādhi states) consistently describe a profound unity of subject and object, where the distinction between one's inner experience and the outer world dissolves. These first-person accounts, while subjective, are direct experiences of this non-dual reality.
2. No Indirect Evidence for DAS or Proto-Consciousness (ProtoC) from Tononi's Effective Integrated Information (EII) Theory (Issue 2.0):
You question the inference of DAS or Proto-Consciousness (PrC) from Tononi's Integrated Information Theory (IIT), arguing that "information" cannot describe non-physical consciousness due to a lack of quantifiable parameters, thus invalidating EII and PrC.
o I) So if the very existence of EII and the very concept of PrC as intrinsic to EII in Tonani's EII is invalid, let Siddhāntin may explain as to how any indirect and remote empirical evidence of science for DAS can be inferred from Tonani's EII?
Your objection hinges on a definition of "information" as solely quantifiable external parameters. However, in IIT, "integrated information" (Φ) is defined not as external data but as the cause-effect power intrinsic to a system—its capacity to make a difference to itself from within, by specifying its own past and future states. This intrinsic information is hypothesized to be consciousness itself. While the measurement of Φ involves quantifiable parameters of a system's causal structure, the "information" it quantifies is about the structure of experience, which is qualitative and intrinsic. Therefore, the concept of non-physical consciousness is described within this framework as a specific, highly integrated form of intrinsic information. If IIT's premise holds, then it provides a powerful theoretical bridge between physical systems and consciousness, supporting the idea that consciousness (the subjective aspect) is intrinsically linked to the system's integrated information (a non-subjective property), thus lending indirect support to DAS.
o II) My second question to Siddhāntin is that when reflecting light signal has no conscious and dual aspect attributes, how the integrated information or information related to the dual aspect, dogmatically assuming if any such information exist at all, can be encoded in the purely physical attributes of frequency/wavelength, phase and energy?
You are correct that light signals themselves, in transit, are purely physical and do not possess conscious or dual-aspect attributes. The information encoded in their physical attributes (frequency, wavelength, phase, energy) is indeed physical information. The key lies in the interaction of this physical signal with a dual-aspect system—the brain (or any perceiving entity). The light signal carries non-subjective information about the stimulus. When this non-subjective information enters and is processed by the brain, which itself is proposed to be a complex dual-aspect state (with inseparable subjective and non-subjective aspects), it generates a new dual-aspect state within the brain that represents the perceived object. It is within this interaction and the resulting dual-aspect brain state that the subjective experience (conscious perception) arises, inseparably linked to the physical neural processing. So, the dual aspect does not reside in the light signal itself, but emerges from its interaction with a dual-aspect perceiving system.
C. Round 5 Responses:
Now, addressing the comments from the latest round of discussion (Round 5):
1. Siddhāntin's Opening Statement and Proposed Expansion of Models:
Siddhāntin rightly points out the "explanatory gap" problem (Levine, 1983) inherent in consciousness-less materialism-based models, with Orch-OR being an exception due to its neutral monism foundation. He suggests a broader consideration of dualism, idealism, and dual-aspect monism in consciousness research. He also raises critical questions about the assumption of consciousness-less matter in elementary particles, their composites, and brains, posing whether they could be proto-conscious matter (Chit-Padārtha) and suggesting that even AI silicon chips might be dual-aspect entities, emphasizing the need to consider both possibilities.
Siddhāntin's Response:
Siddhāntin's points align perfectly with the DPV~ICRDAM framework's core thesis. The "explanatory gap" is precisely the problem DPV~ICRDAM aims to resolve by moving beyond reductive materialism. By positing a fundamental dual-aspect nature (proto-consciousness) even at the elementary particle level, DPV~ICRDAM directly addresses whether matter is truly "consciousness-less." This framework inherently incorporates elements from dualism (recognizing distinct subjective/non-subjective aspects), idealism (acknowledging the primacy of consciousness in ultimate reality), and dual-aspect monism (unifying these aspects into a single substance).
The question of whether brains or even silicon chips in AIs could be dual-aspect entities (possessing proto-consciousness or more complex forms of consciousness depending on their integrated information structure) is a central tenet of DPV~ICRDAM. It suggests that any sufficiently complex system, beyond a certain threshold of integrated information, could potentially manifest an experiential (subjective) aspect. This open-minded approach is crucial for progress in consciousness research, moving beyond limiting assumptions of pure materialism. The DPV~ICRDAM framework, by satisfying 32 criteria for framework selection (Vimal, 2023a)[i], already incorporates a holistic approach to consciousness research.
2. Pūrvapakṣin-1's Paraphrased Concerns & Problems Arising from DAS:
Pūrvapakṣin-1 expresses significant doubts about the Dual-Aspect State (DAS) hypothesis within the DPV~ICRDAM framework. The core concern is that DAS, as proposed to exist at all levels of reality (from fundamental particles to the brain), is merely a speculative assumption by Siddhāntin. It is argued that DAS lacks any verifiable support from science, spiritual traditions, or logical reasoning, even indirectly.
Furthermore, Pūrvapakṣin-1 identifies major issues stemming from the DAS concept:
· The concepts of integrated information (as per Tononi) and dual-aspect information (as per Chalmers) are seen as misinterpretations adopted by Siddhāntin without sufficient critical evaluation.
· There's a challenge regarding how a DAS of one entity could interact with the DAS of another.
· A question is raised about the mechanism of transferring dual-aspect information between systems, particularly in the absence of discrete, quantifiable parameters for the dual aspect.
Siddhāntin's Response:
The assertion that DAS is a "fictitious dogmatic assumption" is a re-statement of earlier critiques and is addressed by the comprehensive arguments presented in Round 3 and 4 Responses, particularly regarding the converging lines of evidence from theoretical physics, neuroscience (NCC, IIT), philosophical traditions (Spinoza, Strawson), and contemplative phenomenology. DAS is proposed as a theoretical necessity to explain the robust correlation between brain states and conscious experience without falling into the pitfalls of substance dualism or reductive materialism. The repeated claim of "no evidence" ignores the cumulative and indirect evidence that, when viewed through the lens of a unified ontology, strongly supports the DAS.
Regarding the "big problems":
· Integrated/Dual-Aspect Information as Misconception: This critique fundamentally misunderstands the theoretical constructs of IIT (Tononi, 2008) and Chalmers's concept of information in a dual-aspect framework (Chalmers, 1996). In IIT, "integrated information" (Φ) is not merely a quantitative measure of external data but is theorized to be consciousness itself, an intrinsic property of a system's causal structure. It's about the quality of experience arising from a specific integration of information. Chalmers's "dual-aspect information" is a proposal to bridge the physical and phenomenal, where information itself has both physical and phenomenal aspects. These are not blind adoptions but sophisticated theoretical propositions in the field of consciousness studies that DPV~ICRDAM integrates and builds upon. DPV~ICRDAM has a specific definition of dual-aspect information as Effective Integrated Information (EII) (Vimal, 2022, 2025a, Section 1), which is a fundamental aspect of reality. The detailed theoretical development in DPV~ICRDAM (Vimal, 2022, 2023, 2024a, 2024b, 2025a, 2025b) demonstrates a thorough application of mind, far from blind adoption.
· Interaction of DAS entities: Pūrvapakṣin-1 asks how one dual-aspect state (DAS) of one entity can interact with the DAS of another entity. This question has been addressed in detail in Section 4 of (Vimal, 2025a, attached); briefly refer to Section 4A above.
In DPV~ICRDAM, we do not separate subjective (s) and non-subjective (ns) aspects, as they are inseparable, unlike in Sankhya and dualism. Both of these frameworks present 14 challenges (Vimal, 2021a) that cannot be resolved and have been refuted by the Brahma Sutras; thus, separate s-s and ns-ns interactions are unnecessary.
However, Pūrvapakṣin-1 holds a naive understanding of psychology and reality and adheres to a dualistic perspective. We will attempt to explain to him in terms he might comprehend, even though this approach is not permitted in DPV~ICRDAM. The interaction between the subjective aspects does not imply direct "telepathy" or "s-s interaction" in the classical sense, which is accurately noted as being generally unobserved between brains. Instead, interaction takes place at the level of the unified dual-aspect system (DAS).
When two entities interact, their non-subjective (physical) aspects engage through conventional physical laws. Since the subjective and non-subjective aspects are inseparable, complementary, and reflective facets of the same DAS, the interaction of the non-subjective aspects simultaneously implies a corresponding influence on their respective subjective aspects. Therefore, the "interaction" involves whole dual-aspect entities.
For instance, when the DAS of light (a DAS of a photon) interacts with the DAS of the visual system (such as a DAS of photoreceptors), this physical interaction leads to a new DAS in the brain, resulting in conscious visual experience. The interaction represents a dynamic shaping of DASs rather than a separate interaction of their subjective components. This concept is explored further in DAS-DAS interaction (Vimal, 2025a, Section 4, attached).[ii]
· Transfer of Dual-Aspect Information without Discrete Parameters: This question is related to the previous one. The critique suggests that without "discrete parameters" for the dual aspect, information cannot be transferred. This again conflates subjective experience with classical, digital information.
o Encoding: Dual-aspect information (EII) is not "encoded" in the same way digital data is encoded in a computer. Rather, it is intrinsic to the state of the entity. When an entity undergoes a change in its non-subjective aspect (e.g., neural activity), its inseparable subjective aspect also changes commensurately.
o Transfer: Information is "transferred" not by discrete packets of "s-aspect" but by the physical interaction of the non-subjective aspects of DASs. This physical interaction induces changes in the receiving DAS, which, by virtue of its dual-aspect nature, simultaneously manifests corresponding subjective changes. For instance, when a brain processes sensory input, the physical neural changes (ns-aspect) lead to the arising of new conscious experiences (s-aspect). The information is fundamentally "dual-aspect" in that it gives rise to both physical and phenomenal realities in the receiving system.
Example from Vichāraka-6's comment:
o Vichāraka-6's comment on the exchange of ideas between mammal brains is highly relevant here. He describes how non-verbal understanding (experience, empathy) can be passed on through actions like dance, leveraging mirror neurons. This is precisely an example of how "information" with both a non-verbal, experiential (subjective) component and a physical (mirror neuron activity) component is "transferred" and understood. It doesn't rely on discrete, quantifiable "subjective parameters" in the classical sense but on a shared, embodied understanding that arises from the interaction of dual-aspect systems. This aligns with DPV~ICRDAM's view of information exchange as an interaction between dual-aspect systems, where the resulting states are themselves dual-aspect.
3. Vichāraka-6's Paraphrased Commentary: Exchange of Ideas and Intelligence in Mammalian Brains:
Vichāraka-6 acknowledges some understanding of the general idea behind how thoughts or information might be encoded and shared between individuals, even if the precise context or assumptions are unclear. He emphasizes that the exchange of ideas is a crucial topic in systems neuroscience, especially concerning mammal brains, including humans.
He highlights a historical "Great Duality" in scientific thought:
· Old School (Chomsky/Pinker): Proposes a hardwired "Deep Structure" for natural language, granting humans a unique, superior level of intelligence compared to other mammals.
· Alternative View (Skinner/Pavlov): Assumes universal learning laws apply to all mammals and vertebrates, suggesting a more gradual difference in intelligence (e.g., snails thinking similarly but slower).
Vichāraka-6 then references a "great revolution" inspired by M.E. Bitterman's work, which revealed fundamental qualitative differences in intelligence levels across vertebrate classes. This led to his own work, including an independent study for Minsky on AI development, focusing on symbolic reasoning in human brains.
However, Vichāraka-6, along with colleagues like Walter Freeman and Laurens van der Post, developed a contrasting perspective. They were impressed by van der Post's observations of "bushman dance," which demonstrated how EXPERIENCE and NONVERBAL UNDERSTANDING were transmitted through performance and mirror neurons (shared with monkeys but uniquely enhanced in humans for empathy). This suggests human intelligence involves a unique capacity for dance and assimilation, indicating a form of empathy beyond direct visual experience.
He concludes by suggesting that more recent understanding indicates some toothed cetaceans (dolphins, whales, orcas) might have evolved even higher empathy capabilities. He proposes that human logic is something learned and emulated, hinting that deeper understanding, such as "qi," is also possible.
Siddhāntin's Response:
Vichāraka-6's points are insightful and highly pertinent to the DPV~ICRDAM framework, particularly concerning the nature of information exchange and intelligence.
· Exchange of Ideas and Information: Vichāraka-6's articulation of how ideas or thoughts from one brain can be "encoded" and "gotten" by another, especially non-verbally through "experience and nonverbal understanding" (e.g., dance and mirror neurons), directly supports the DPV~ICRDAM's understanding of information transfer within a dual-aspect context. This is not about transferring purely physical signals or purely subjective feelings, but about the interaction of one dual-aspect brain with another, leading to a corresponding dual-aspect state in the receiver. The mirror neuron system, which shares capabilities with monkeys but is uniquely enhanced in humans for phenomena like dance and empathy (Vichāraka-6), is an excellent neurobiological correlate for the kind of subtle "dual-aspect information exchange" that DPV~ICRDAM envisions. Empathy, in particular, points to a sharing or mirroring of subjective states, which would be impossible if consciousness were purely private and uncoupled from its physical basis.
· Great Duality in Neuroscience and Levels of Intelligence: Vichāraka-6's description of the "Great Duality" between Chomsky/Pinker's "hardwired Deep Structure" (symbolic reasoning, language-centric intelligence) and Skinner/Pavlov's "same laws of learning for all mammals" (general associative learning) reflects a fundamental debate that DPV~ICRDAM seeks to integrate. Bitterman's work on "fundamental levels of qualitative intelligence" across vertebrates and Minsky's pursuit of "human level" symbolic reasoning are attempts to characterize the diverse manifestations of intelligence.
DPV~ICRDAM would interpret these different levels and types of intelligence as arising from varying degrees of complexity and integration within the DAS of different organisms. While all entities possess proto-consciousness (a fundamental s-aspect), the manifested consciousness (and thus intelligence) becomes more complex as the non-subjective (neural-physical) structures become more integrated and capable of processing higher-order information. The difference between "snails thinking the same way as humans" and distinct "qualitative intelligence" levels can be reconciled by considering the degree and kind of integrated information (Φ) present in their respective DASs.
· Empathy and Qi: The emphasis on "experience and nonverbal understanding," dance, and empathy (especially in cetaceans) highlights the crucial role of the subjective aspect and its manifestation in observable behavior. Empathy, as a phenomenon involving the mirroring and understanding of others' emotional and experiential states, serves as a powerful testament to the interconnectedness of subjective realities, mediated by the physical brain. It suggests that there is indeed a way for one subjective experience to "resonate" or "inform" another, even without explicit linguistic communication. The mention of "qi" further aligns with DPV~ICRDAM's broader spiritual foundations, as "qi" (or prana/kundalini in other traditions) can be understood as an energetic aspect that bridges the physical and subtle, potentially influencing and being influenced by the dual-aspect states of entities. In DPV~ICRDAM, Qi is a subtle aspect of DAS and its ns-aspect is energy (Vimal, 2025a, Section 1).
In summary, Vichāraka-6's commentary, particularly on non-verbal communication and empathy, provides valuable empirical and conceptual support for the DPV~ICRDAM framework's explanation of DAS-DAS interaction and dual-aspect information transfer, especially in the context of complex biological systems like the brain.
5. Synthesis with Previous Response to Support DPV~ICRDAM
The synthesis of arguments from the previous response with the clarifications above further strengthens the DPV~ICRDAM framework. The framework's ability to interpret quantum phenomena, such as observer dependence (Fuchs, 2010; Rovelli, 1996), suggests a fundamental entanglement of subjective and non-subjective elements at the most basic levels of reality, aligning with the reflective and inseparable nature of DAS. Neuroscience, through the study of Neural Correlates of Consciousness (NCC) (Koch, 2004), provides empirical evidence for the tight coupling between subjective experience and non-subjective (physical) brain states, which DPV~ICRDAM interprets as the empirical signature of the inseparable DAS in living systems.
In other words, there are not two separate brain states, such as subjective (mental) and non-subjective (physical) states; instead, there exists a dual-aspect state (DAS) with inseparable, complementary, and reflective s and ns aspects within the DPV~ICRDAM framework.
The inclusion of Integrated Information Theory (IIT) (Tononi, 2008) in the DPV~ICRDAM context (Vimal, 2022) offers a quantitative measure (Φ) for consciousness that is intrinsically linked to the structural and functional properties of a system. This theoretical alignment provides a conceptual bridge between information-theoretic properties and subjective experience, supporting the pervasive dual-aspect nature, even for minimal systems (Tononi, 2008).
Furthermore, the DPV~ICRDAM framework provides a unique lens through which to understand complex states like vegetative states. By proposing that these involve a dual-aspect state with "vegetative protoconsciousness" (s-aspect) and compromised neural activity (ns-aspect) (Vimal, 2025a), the framework offers a coherent explanation for findings of covert consciousness in otherwise unresponsive patients (Monti et al., 2010; Owen et al., 2006). This demonstrates its capacity to integrate cutting-edge empirical research with a comprehensive ontological model.
Finally, the philosophical arguments, including Spinoza's Dual-Aspect Monism (Spinoza, 1677) and Strawson's Realistic Monism (Strawson, 2006), provide robust conceptual support for the notion that non-subjective (physical) and experiential properties are two inseparable aspects of a single reality. The interpretation of electromagnetic forces as proto-consciousness (Empedocles; Vimal, 2025a) further illustrates the framework's broad applicability to fundamental physics.
6. Conclusion
The DPV~ICRDAM framework, grounded in the Dual-Aspect State (DAS) hypothesis, proposes a unified ontology that integrates subjective experience and objective reality. While the critical feedback rightly demands rigorous empirical and logical scrutiny, this response has articulated how DPV~ICRDAM addresses these challenges by drawing upon multifaceted lines of evidence and reasoned arguments. The framework interprets current scientific observations (e.g., QM, NCC, IIT) as consistent with, and often supportive of, a dual-aspect reality, even when direct measurement of all aspects remains a frontier. Philosophical traditions provide robust conceptual grounding, and contemplative experiences offer profound phenomenological insights into the unity of existence.
DPV~ICRDAM is not presented as a dogmatic belief but as a developing scientific and philosophical hypothesis that seeks to provide a coherent, comprehensive, and potentially verifiable understanding of subjective (consciousness) and its relation to the non-subjective world. By proposing that every entity is a DAS with inseparable, complementary, and reflective subjective and non-subjective aspects, DPV~ICRDAM offers a powerful paradigm for bridging disparate fields of knowledge and fostering a more integrated understanding of reality.
Note: See also Appendixes A1-A3.
7. Appendixes by Siddhāntin
Appendix A1
3. List of Issues Raised
Below is the list of issues raised in the feedback.
The critical feedback systematically challenged the DPV~ICRDAM framework, focusing on the empirical and logical foundations of its core hypothesis, the Dual-Aspect State (DAS). The specific issues can be summarized as follows:
- Overall Critique: The assertion that DAS and the entire DPV~ICRDAM framework represent an unproven, logically invalid, and dogmatic personal belief system, lacking empirical validation from science, spirituality, or philosophical metaphysics. [This is not true as explained below and DPV~ICRDAM explains, so far, 232 Brahma Sutras.]
- Methodological Concern: It is premature to discuss bridging science and spirituality until DAS is empirically and logically proven. [This is also untenable concern as explained below; in addition, over 40 Vedantic and non-Vedantic framework are bridged through 232 Brahma Sutras. Some of the classical ancient frameworks (such as Sankhya) are rejected by these sutras, but they are re-interpreted through DPV~ICRDAM; for example, Neo-Sāṅkhya (Vimal, 2024b.Volume 3.2, Section 78), Neo-Vaiśeṣika (Vimal, 2024b, Volume 3.2, Section 79), Neo-Buddhism (Vimal, 2024b, Volume 3.2, Section 85-86), Neo-Janism (Vimal, 2024b, Volume 3.2, Section 79), Neo-Pāśupata (Vimal, 2024b, Volume 3.2, Section 89), Neo-Bhāgavata-Pāñcarātra (Vimal, 2024b3.Section 91), Neo-<Gauḍīya Vedānta ≡ (identical) Achintya-Bheda-Abheda Vedānta (GV≡ABAV)>, Neo-materialism, and Neo-Idealism (Vimal, 2024b3.Section 92).]
The fourteen specific issues that require clarification are:
1. Issue 1: Empirical Evidence for DAS in Elementary Particles. The lack of empirical proof for a subjective aspect (protoconsciousness, protoC) in electrons/photons and a measurable commensurate change in it when the non-subjective aspect changes. [This is not true because, for example, feeling of attraction and repulsion between opposite and same charges, and function of an entity can be considered as evidence for protoC a s-aspect.]
2. Issue 2: DAS in the Brain from fMRI Studies. The argument that a 1:1 correlation observed in fMRI studies does not prove DAS in the brain, citing the inherent mismatch between the public, quantifiable nature of the brain and the private, non-quantifiable nature of subjective experiences. [It depends on a metaphysics. In Sankhya, we can argue for s and ns separable and also correlation. In DPV~ICRDAM, 1-1 correlation is considered inseparability.\
3. Issue 3: Logical Incompatibility of Non-subjective (ns) and Subjective (s) Aspects. The assertion that ns and s aspects cannot be complementary or co-exist in a DAS due to their fundamentally different inherent properties (e.g., non-subjective vs. subjective, public vs. private). [They appear different in conventional mind-dependent Saguna Brahman (SB) reality, but they parts of cosmic SB; so both are Brhaman; however, fundamental ultimate NB reality they are all NB (Nirguna Brahman); so they are the same EII patterns because EII is identical in both s and ns aspects].
4. Issue 4: Comprehensive Lack of Empirical Evidence and Logical Consistency. A concluding point that there is no empirical evidence for DAS in particles or the brain, and that the assumption of DAS is logically untenable. [Not true! See above Issue 1 argument.]
5. Issue 5: Quantum Mechanics, Observer's Role, and DAS-DAS Interactions. The claim that the observer's role in QM does not prove DAS, and that DAS-DAS interactions are infeasible due to the private nature of the subjective aspect and lack of observed s-s interactions between brains. [Not true! The view s-s interaction is not from DPV~ICRDAM because you have separated s from ns; this critique would be valid in Sankhya and dualism, where s and ns are assumed to be separable. In DPV~ICRDAM, only DAS-DAS interactions are allowed. Therefore, this critique is untenable. Quantum Mechanics, Observer's Role, and DAS-DAS Interactions are fully valid and explained in detail before and alse see below.]
6. Issue 6: Neuroscientific Correlates and DAS in the Brain. Reiterating that strong correlations between brain's non-subjective structure (Neural Correlates of Consciousness - NCC) and subjective subjective experiences do not prove DAS in the brain, again emphasizing the property mismatch. [Both CSE and NPA/NPB are manifested; therefore, 1-1 correlation is interpreted that s and ns are inseparable. Since (i) all other metaphysics have serious problems, (ii) only DPV~ICRDAM satisfies 32 criteria of framework selection (Vimal, 2023a)[iii] hence ranks the highest, and (iii) none of the 100s of fMRI/EEG report show separability, there is no other valid interpretation of 1-1 correlation except inseparability between s and ns aspects of a DAS of an observer.]
8. References
Abhinavagupta. Tantrāloka. (10th c. CE). cite_start
Atmanspacher, H., & Rickles, D. (2022). Dual-aspect monism and the deep structure of meaning. Routledge.
Aurobindo, S. (1999). The Life Divine. Sri Aurobindo Ashram Publication Department.
Bekinschtein, T. A., et al. (2011). Selectively preserved consciousness in a patient with the vegetative state. Cambridge NeuroImage Clinical.
Boly, M., et al. (2011). Auditory processing in the vegetative state: An event-related potential study. Brain, 134(2), 346-356.
Boyer, S. (2018). The Big Book of Yoga. Harmony. [Chapter 9: The Yoga of Transcendental Meditation (TM)].
Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 1.4.10.
Chalmers, D. (1995). Facing up to the problem of consciousness. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 2(3), 200-219.
Chalmers, D. (1996). The conscious mind. Oxford University Press.
Chalmers, D. (2003). Consciousness and its Place in Nature, In S. Stich & T. Warfield, eds, Blackwell Guide to Philosophy of Mind (Blackwell, 2003)< https://consc.net/papers/nature.pdf >
Chalmers, D. (2013). Panpsychism and panprotopsychism. The Amherst Lecture in Philosophy, 8, 1-35. [Reprinted in Consciousness and its place in nature, 2015, pp. 246-276?]
Chalmers, D. J. (1995). Facing up to the problem of consciousness. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 2(3), 200-219.
Chalmers, D. J. (1996). The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory. Oxford University Press.
Chāndogya Upaniṣad 3.14.1.
Cruse D., Chennu S., et al. (2011). “Bedside detection of awareness in the vegetative state: A cohort study.” The Lancet.
Cruse, D., et al. (2011). Detecting awareness in the vegetative state: An EEG study. Brain, 134(6), 1618-1626.
Fernández-Espejo, D., & Owen, A. M. (2013). The clinical utility of EEG-based motor imagery tasks in the vegetative state. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7.
Fernández-Espejo, D., et al. (2014). The BOLD signal in the vegetative state: Assessment of standard clinical MRI scanners. Brain Injury, 28(4), 405-412.
Fuchs, C. A. (2010). QBism, the perimeter of quantum Bayesianism. AIP Conference Proceedings, 1319(1), 77-83.
Goff, P. (2015). Real acquaintance and physicalism. In P. Coates & S. Coleman (Eds.), Phenomenal concepts and phenomenal knowledge (pp. 121-140). Oxford University Press.
Goff, P. (2017). Consciousness and fundamental reality. Oxford University Press.
James, W. (1905). A world of pure experience. The Journal of Philosophy, Psychology and Scientific Methods, 2(20), 533-543.
Jung, C. G., & Pauli, W. (1955). The interpretation of nature and the psyche. Pantheon Books.
Koch, C. (2004). The quest for consciousness: A neurobiological approach. Roberts & Company Publishers.
Laurent, E., et al. (2007). Brain activity in vegetative state patients. Brain, 130(6), 1699-1709.
Levine, J. (1983). Materialism and qualia: The explanatory gap. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 64(4), 354-361.
Lockwood, M. (1989). Mind, brain and the quantum. Blackwell.
Lockwood, M. (1992). The grain problem. In H. Robinson (Ed.), Objections to physicalism (pp. 271-291). Oxford University Press.
Maharaj, S. N. (2017). I Am That: Conversations with Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj. Acorn Press.
Maharṣi, Ramaṇa (2006a). The Collected Works of Ramana Maharshi. Sophia Perennis et Universalis. (रमण महर्षि).
Maharṣi, Ramaṇa (2006b). Be As You Are: The Teachings of Sri Ramana Maharshi. Penguin.
Maitrī Upaniṣad. (VI.28).
Maxwell, G. (1978). Rigid designators and mind-brain identity. Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 9, 365-403.
Monti, M. M., Laureys, S., Owen, A. M. (2010). Willful modulation of brain activity in disorders of consciousness. New England Journal of Medicine, 362(7), 579-589.
Mørch, H. H. (2014). Panpsychism and causation: A new argument and a solution to the combination problem [Doctoral dissertation]. University of Oslo.
Naci, L., & Owen, A. M. (2013). Making every word count for noncommunicative patients. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 25(11), 1801-1811.
Nagel, T. (1974). What is it like to be a bat? The Philosophical Review, 83(4), 435-450.
Owen, A. M., et al. (2006). Detecting awareness in the vegetative state. Science, 313(5792), 1402-1402.
Rastogi, N. (1996). The Tantraloka of Abhinavagupta: A study of the dual and non-dual aspects of the Tantric tradition. Motilal Banarsidass.
Rosenberg, G. H. (2004). A place for consciousness: Probing the deep structure of the natural world. Oxford University Press.
Rovelli, C. (1996). Relational quantum mechanics. International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 35(8), 1637-1678.
Russell, B. (1927). The analysis of matter. Kegan Paul.
Solms, M. (2021). The hidden spring: A journey to the source of consciousness. W. W. Norton & Company.
Spinoza, B. (2022). Ethics. Translated from 1677 original.
Strawson, G. (2003). Real materialism. In L. M. Antony & N. Hornstein (Eds.), Chomsky and his critics (pp. 49-88). Blackwell.
Strawson, G. (2006). Realistic monism: Why physicalism entails panpsychism. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 13.
Strawson, G. (2006a). Consciousness and its place in nature. In A. Freeman (Ed.), Consciousness and its place in nature (pp. 3-98). Imprint Academic.[v] Book: Consciousness and Its Place in Nature: Does Physicalism Entail Panpsychism? <https://www.amazon.com/Consciousness-Its-Place-Nature-Physicalism/dp/1845400593>
Strawson, G. (2006b). Realistic monism: Why physicalism entails panpsychism. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 13(10-11), 3-31.
Tononi, G. (2008). Consciousness as integrated information: A first approximation. Biological Bulletin, 215(3), 216-242.
Tononi, G., Boly, M., Massimini, O., & Koch, C. (2016). Integrated information theory: From consciousness to its physical substrate. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 17(7), 450-461
Unger, P. (2005). All the power in the world. Oxford University Press.
Verma, S. et al. (2021). Neuroscience of the yogic theory of consciousness.
Vimal, R. L. P. (2022). The Inseparable-Complementary-Reflective Dual-Aspect Monism framework: Segregation and integration of information, the critical test for the inseparability between aspects, soul, and framework selection criteria. Vision Research Institute: Living Vision and Consciousness Research, 15(1), 1-68. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/361594023. (Vimal, 2022).
Vimal, R. L. P. (2023a). Vimal, R.L.P. (2023) Framework selection for Consciousness (Consciousness 2.0). Vision Research Institute: Living Vision and Consciousness Research, 16(3), 1–70.
[ii] In other words, in DPV~ICRDAM, we do not separate s and ns (because they are inseparable) as done in Sankhya and dualism (both have 14 challenges (Vimal, 2021a) that cannot be resolved and both are refuted by Brahma Sutras); therefore, s-s and ns-ns interactions are not needed.
However, Pūrvapakṣin-1 suffers from naïve psychology and naïve reality, and is an ardent dualist; we will try to explain him in his way (which is forbidden in DPV~ICRDAM). The interaction is not between the subjective aspects directly in a way that implies direct "telepathy" or "s-s interaction" in the classical sense (which is correctly identified as not generally observed between brains). Instead, the interaction occurs at the level of the unified DAS. When two entities interact, their non-subjective (physical) aspects interact through conventional physical laws. Because the subjective and non-subjective aspects are inseparable, complementary, and reflective facets of the same DAS, the interaction of the non-subjective aspects simultaneously implies a corresponding influence on their respective subjective aspects. The "interaction" is therefore an interaction between whole dual-aspect entities. For example, when a DAS of light (a DAS of a photon) interacts with a DAS of the visual system (such as a DAS of photoreceptors in a visual system), the physical interaction leads to a new DAS in the brain, manifesting as conscious visual experience. The interaction is a dynamic shaping of DASs, not a separate interaction of their subjective components. This is further elaborated as DAS-DAS interaction (Vimal, 2025a, Section 4, attached).
15. A dual-aspect state (DAS), characterized by its inseparable and complementary subjective (s) and non-subjective (ns) aspects, is dynamic and evolves over time. The apparent duality between s and ns exists at the dualistic conventional level, which is mind-dependent reality (CMDR), rather than at the monistic ultimate level, which pertains to mind-independent reality (UMIR). In simpler terms, while s and ns aspects may appear separable and dualistic at the conventional level—manifesting as the distinction between subject and object, between s and ns aspects, or between first-person (1pp) and third-person perspectives (3pp)—they are fundamentally inseparable and complementary at the ultimate level.
For instance, at the conventional level, the Earth appears flat and the Sun appears to move across the sky from east to west (an earth-centric perspective), whereas at the ultimate level, the Sun is central and the planets orbit around it (a sun-centric view). This distinction clarifies why dualistic Sāṅkhya may seem valid at the conventional level (Vyoharik Satya), while DPV~ICRDAM holds true at the ultimate level (parmarthik Satya).[iv]
[v] For the last five years, philosopher Galen Strawson has provoked a mixture of shock and scepticism with his carefully argued case that physicalism (the view that every real, concrete phenomenon in the universe is physical) entails panpsychism (the view that the existence of every real, concrete thing involves experiential being). In this book, Strawson provides the fullest and most careful statement of his position to date, throwing down the gauntlet to his critics ― including Peter Carruthers, Frank Jackson, David Rosenthal, and J.J.C. Smart ― by inviting them to respond in print. The book concludes with Strawson's response to his commentators. Galen Strawson's books include Mental Reality, The Self?, and Freedom and Belief.
Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal
<rlpvimal@yahoo.co.in>Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal
<rlpvimal@yahoo.co.in>Hi Everyone,
We are now moving forward into the sixth round of discussions.
We appreciate your feedback and constructive comments.
Sixth Round of Discussion: Responding to Detailed Critiques of the Dual-Aspect State Hypothesis in the DPV~ICRDAM Framework
[Pūrvapakṣin-1: 5-August-2025, Paraphrased]
The critic argues that the theory of particles having a "Dual Aspect State" (DAS)—meaning they possess both physical properties and a form of consciousness—creates unsolvable problems.
The Problem of Interaction
Physical particles, like electrons and photons, interact through measurable fields that are described by mathematical functions (like the Lagrangian). These fields exist because particles have well-defined, quantifiable properties.
However, the proposed "conscious" aspect of a particle has no known measurable or definable properties. Therefore, you can't construct a "conscious field" around a particle. Without such a field, it's impossible to explain how these particles could interact on a conscious level. If particles can't interact, the entire universe, including our brains and bodies, would come to a standstill. This is presented as a fatal flaw in the theory.
The Problem of Information
Information works by describing the state of something using defined parameters. Since the conscious aspect of particles lacks any such parameters, it's impossible to define or describe "conscious information."
This leads to two serious consequences:
1. The concept of "dual-aspect information" becomes meaningless.
2. If this information can't be defined, it certainly can't be transferred. This makes it impossible to explain how a subjective experience, like seeing a rose, could occur, as there is no mechanism for the "rose information" to travel to your brain.
A Faulty Defense: "Naive Realism"
The critic anticipates that the theory's proponent will dismiss these objections as "naive realism," arguing that while these interactions might not make sense in our everyday reality, they could still be possible in a separate, "ultimate" reality.
The critic refutes this defense by defining what makes a belief "naive." For example, believing the Earth is flat is naive realism only because we have alternative proof (like photos from space) that it's round. Without that alternative perspective, the flat-Earth view couldn't be called naive.
Since there is no evidence or alternative perspective showing that conscious particles exist or interact in some "ultimate reality," it is invalid to use the "naive realism" label to brush aside the serious problems raised.
[Siddhāntin]
This is the 6th round of discussion on Issue # 25. The recent arguments (5aug25) of Pūrvapakṣin-1 are based on separating s and ns aspects, which is dualism; separability is no evidence over 100s of fMRI/EEG reports; it is still naïve realism similar to flat-earth and ancient earth-centric view. Alternative view based on dual-aspect monism is available with enough evidence, as previously discussed in Issues 1-25; for example, 100s of fMRI/EEG reports support inseparability between s and ns aspects because none of the reports show separability between s and ns aspects (which is essential for supporting dualism). DPV~ICRDAM is not dualism, it is dual-aspect monism, where s and ns aspects are inseparable, complementary, and reflective; and only DAS-DAS (dual-aspect state) interactions are permitted. Particles are not single physical (material) ns aspects; instead, their states are DASs with inseparable, complementary, and reflective s and ns aspects. Lagrangians are for entities with DASs. Information is also a dual-aspect entity. A dualistic view of considering s and ns separate and alone is naïve. Siddhāntin has mentioned multiple times the need to refrain from dualism when discussing dual-aspect monism-based frameworks.
Furthermore, towards a theory of everything (TOE), consciousness was introduced in physics in such a way that equations of physics remain unchanged for the dual-aspect monism framework. See: (Vimal, 2010e) for classical mechanics (such as electromagnetic theory, special and general theory of relativity), (Vimal, 2010f) for orthodox QM (Schrödinger equation, current, Dirac Lagrangian, the Lagrangian for a charged self‐interacting scalar field) and Standard Model (the Lagrangian for free gauge field and Lagrangian for the electromagnetic interaction of a charged scalar field) and (Vimal, 2010g) for QM (such as loop quantum gravity and string theory).
Thus, Pūrvapakṣin-1’s arguments are untenable in DPV~ICDAM (spirituality-based Dvi-Pakṣādvaita Vedānta ~ (equivalent to) science-based Inseparable-Complementary-Reflective Dual-Aspect Monism) framework.
1. Sixth Round of Discussion: Responding to Renewed Critiques on Interaction, Information, and Foundational Assumptions
This section addresses the sixth round of critical feedback from Pūrvapakṣin-1, which reiterates and sharpens previous concerns regarding the fundamental mechanics of interaction and information transfer under the Dual-Aspect State (DAS) hypothesis. The response synthesizes previous arguments and introduces further clarifications to demonstrate the coherence of the DPV~ICRDAM framework.
A. Issue 25. [Pūrvapakṣin-1: 5-August-2025]: The Unsolvable Problems of Interaction and Information Arising from DAS
The critic presents a consolidated argument that the Dual-Aspect State (DAS) hypothesis creates fatal, unsolvable problems related to physical interaction and information theory.
· The Problem of Interaction: Physical interactions are explained by measurable fields (e.g., Lagrangians) derived from quantifiable properties of particles. The proposed "conscious" aspect (s-aspect) of a particle lacks any known measurable or definable properties. Therefore, one cannot construct a "conscious field" to explain its interactions. The critic argues that without such a field, particles with a DAS could not interact, bringing the universe to a standstill.
· The Problem of Information: Information is defined by a set of parameters describing a state. Since the conscious aspect has no known parameters, it is impossible to define "conscious information" or "dual-aspect information." Consequently, it's impossible to explain how this non-definable information could be transferred from one system to another (e.g., from a rose to a brain), making the explanation of subjective experience impossible.
· A Faulty Defense: "Naive Realism": The critic anticipates and preemptively refutes the defense that these problems are a product of "naive realism." An idea (like a flat Earth) can only be called naive if an alternative, evidence-based perspective (a spherical Earth seen from space) is available. The critic argues that since there is no alternative perspective or evidence proving that DAS exists in an "ultimate reality," it is invalid to dismiss these fundamental problems as naive realism.
B. Siddhāntin's Response:
The arguments raised in this round (Issue 25) are based on a foundational misunderstanding of the DPV~ICRDAM framework. The critique analyzes a dual-aspect monist model through the lens of dualism, which incorrectly assumes that subjective (s) and non-subjective (ns) aspects are separate aspects that would require separate interaction mechanisms and information channels. DPV~ICRDAM is not dualism; it is a dual-aspect monist framework where the 's' and 'ns' aspects are inseparable, complementary, and reflective. Therefore, the critique's premises are untenable.
· On the Problem of Interaction and Lagrangians: The critic’s argument incorrectly assumes that particles are merely physical (ns) objects that have a separate, non-interacting conscious (s) aspect attached to them. In DPV~ICRDAM, a particle's state is a unified Dual-Aspect State (DAS). Physical laws and mathematical functions like Lagrangians describe the behavior of these complete DAS entities, not just a "physical part."
Towards creating a theory of everything (TOE), consciousness has already been introduced into the core equations of physics without altering them, precisely by treating entities as dual-aspect. This has been demonstrated for:
o Classical Mechanics: Including electromagnetic theory and relativity (Vimal, 2010e).
o Quantum Mechanics (QM): Including the Schrödinger equation, Dirac Lagrangian, and the Standard Model (Vimal, 2010f).
o Advanced QM: Including loop quantum gravity and string theory (Vimal, 2010g).
Thus, the argument that physics cannot account for DAS interactions is incorrect; the framework integrates them seamlessly.
· On the Problem of Information: The assertion that "dual-aspect information" is meaningless stems from the same dualistic error. Information is not a purely physical construct that needs to separately encode a subjective (the use of the term “non-physical” for “subjective” is misleading as the term “physical” is not well-defined and hence not used in DPV~ICRDAM) property. Within DPV~ICRDAM, information itself is a dual-aspect entity (Vimal, 2025a). Information is "transferred" not by sending discrete packets of "subjective data," but through the dual-aspect state (DAS)-DAS interactions. Physical (ns-ns) interaction of the non-subjective aspects of whole DASs is a dualistic view because we will be separating the s and ns aspects, and analyzing ns alone; if it is forcefully used, then still inseparability, complementarity, ad reflectivity properties of s and ns aspects can transfer information immediately, faithfully, and reliably to the s-aspect. This is elaborated in Section 4 of (Vimal, 2025a).
When one DAS interacts with another (e.g., photons from a rose interacting with photoreceptors in an eye), the physical interaction induces a change in the receiving DAS. By virtue of the aspects' inseparability, this change in the non-subjective (neural activity) is simultaneously a change in the subjective (the experience of seeing the rose) (Vimal, 2025a). This process is exemplified by the role of mirror neurons in transmitting non-verbal understanding and empathy, where physical observation creates a corresponding subjective state (Vimal, 2025a).
· On the Charge of "Naive Realism": The critic's use of the "naive realism" argument is inverted. From the perspective of DPV~ICRDAM, the truly "naive" view is the dualistic one that considers subjective and non-subjective aspects to be fundamentally separate. This view is analogous to the ancient Earth-centric model of the cosmos (Vimal, 2025a).
The "alternative perspective" that challenges this naive dualism is dual-aspect monism, which is supported by extensive evidence. As argued previously, hundreds of fMRI/EEG reports show a consistent 1-to-1 correlation between neural activity (ns) and conscious experience (s). Critically, none of these reports show any evidence of separability (Vimal, 2025a). This persistent lack of separability is powerful evidence for inseparability, which is the cornerstone of DAS. The burden of proof lies on dualism to show evidence of separation, which it has failed to do.
In summary, Pūrvapakṣin-1's arguments are invalid because they attempt to deconstruct a monistic, inseparable system using dualistic, separable logic. The DPV~ICRDAM framework remains coherent and consistent, positing that only unified DAS-DAS interactions occur, driven by physical laws that govern these whole entities.
-------------------------------------------------- --------
RāmLakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.
Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal
<rlpvimal@yahoo.co.in>Hi Everyone,
We are now moving forward into the 7th round of discussions.
We appreciate your feedback and constructive comments.
12. Seventh Round of Discussion: Responding to Detailed Critiques of the Dual-Aspect State Hypothesis in the DPV~ICRDAM Framework
[Pūrvapakṣin-1: 7-August-2025, Paraphrased]
Critique # 26
Physics involves clear parameters that are quantifiable and measurable by physical instruments, making it objective (outbound). In contrast, consciousness is holistic, lacks discrete measurements, is non-quantifiable and non-measurable, and is subjective (inbound).
In other words:
(1) Consciousness (conscious subjective experiences of self, stimuli, and the conscious part of cognition) is holistic (discreteless), not quantifiable, not measurable, and inbound (i.e., from the 1st person perspective).
(2) The neural-physical activity/basis (NPA/NPB) or neural correlation of consciousness (NCC) is discrete, quantifiable, measurable, and outbound (i.e., from the 3rd person perspective).
Given that, how can consciousness, as a subjective aspect of a conscious dual-aspect state (DAS) of an observer, and NPA/NPB/NCC, as a non-subjective aspect of the same conscious DAS of the same observer, be inseparable, complementary, and reflective?
[Siddhāntin, 7-August-2025]
1. Short Answer
Pūrvapakṣin-1’s critique is ancient, based on dualism-based Sankhya, which appears true at conventional reality (vyāvahārika satya). However, it is false at the ultimate level (pāramārthika Satya), where Brahman is non-dual, i.e., at neutral Nirguna Brahman (NB) level. It is important to note that there is a single non-dual Brahman that has both consciousness and matter, i.e., NB is both efficient cause (for 'consciousness') and material cause (for 'matter'), which are “parts” of “whole” (cosmic) dual-aspect (DA) Saguna Brahman (SB). DA_SB manifests from and returns to neutral NB. Our DPV~ICRDAM (spirituality-based Dvi-Pakṣādvaita Vedānta ~ (equivalent to) science-based Inseparable-Complementary-Reflective Dual-Aspect Monism) fully addresses such issues in (Vimal, 2023, 2024a, 2024b, 2025a, 2025b).
For a long answer, please see below:
2. The Incommensurability Problem: Why Holistic Consciousness and Discrete Neural Activity cannot be Complementary Aspects
Bridging the Unbridgeable: The Conceptual Impossibility of Dual-Aspect Theories of Consciousness
The critique raises a fundamental challenge for dual-aspect theories of consciousness - what philosophers call the "unity problem" or "binding problem" for such theories. Pūrvapakṣin-1 is essentially asking: how can two aspects that differ so radically in their fundamental characteristics (discrete vs. holistic, measurable vs. non-measurable, objective vs. subjective) be aspects of the same underlying reality?
This is a serious conceptual challenge. Let us examine the tensions:
The Measurement Problem: If consciousness is truly non-quantifiable and holistic while neural activity is discrete and measurable, we face what seems like a category error. How can something without parts (holistic consciousness) correspond to something with clearly delineated parts (neural networks, firing rates, etc.)?
The Perspective Problem: The "inbound" vs. "outbound" distinction Pūrvapakṣin-1 draws points to what David Chalmers calls the "hard problem." Even if we map every neural correlation perfectly, the first-person qualitative experience seems to involve something categorically different from third-person physical descriptions.
Possible responses from dual-aspect theorists might include:
1. Emergence arguments: Perhaps consciousness emerges from neural complexity in ways that create genuinely new properties - but this risks making consciousness epiphenomenal rather than truly complementary.
2. Information integration approaches: Theories like IIT attempt to quantify consciousness through measures like Φ (phi), but critics argue this just reduces consciousness to its physical correlates.
3. Neutral monism: Perhaps both consciousness and neural activity are manifestations of some more fundamental reality that is itself neither mental nor physical - but this pushes the explanatory problem back a level.
The most honest assessment may be that current dual-aspect theories haven't successfully resolved this tension. The properties Pūrvapakṣin-1 identifies do seem genuinely incompatible in ways that make "complementary aspects of the same thing" difficult to cash out coherently. This suggests either that consciousness and neural activity are more separate than dual-aspect theories claim, or that our conceptual frameworks for understanding both domains need fundamental revision.
3. Beyond Incommensurability: DPV~ICRDAM's Neutral Monist Solution to the Consciousness-Neural Activity Binding Problem
From Ancient Wisdom to Modern Science: How Vedanta's Dual-Level Ontology Resolves the Hard Problem of Consciousness
This is, in essence, dualism-based Sankhya’s critique to non-dual Vedanta lingering over 100s of years. Sankhya proposes Purusha and Prakriti as two independent fundametal entities, which has about 14 problems as elaborated in (Vimal, 2021a). Advaita Vedanta posits single non-dual neutral Nirguna Brahman (NB), which is close to Neutral Monism. Here, neutral is defined using neti-neti principle: neither explicitly attribute-less nor explicitly attribute-laden, neither explicitly consciousness-less nor explicitly consciousness-laden, neither explicitly mental (subjective) nor explicitly physical (non-subjectve), etc. In other words, neutral implies latent, hidden, unmanifested, undifferentiated, and potentialities for everything. Therefore, the state of NB has latent subjective (s) and non-subjective (ns) aspects of a dual-aspect state (DAS), which is unmanifested, undifferentiated, and fully symmetric, but has potentiality of everything.
In DPV~ICRDAM (spirituality-based Dvi-Pakṣādvaita Vedānta ~ (equivalent to) science-based Inseparable-Complementary-Reflective Dual-Aspect Monism), NB manifests into dual-aspect Saguna Brahman (SB) through symmetry breaking and phase trasition as elaborated in the Heptagonal Cyclic Cosmology (HCC) (Vimal, 2025b.Section 4.2.8).[i] Thus, DPV~ICRDAM addresses this Critique successfully as elaborated in (Vimal, 2023, 2024a, 2024b, 2025a, 2025b) specifically, in Sections 34.10 (5th round of discussion) and 34.11 (6th round of discussion). DPV~ICRDAM has fully addressed the “Hard Problem” as elaborated in Section 90.7 of Volume 3.3 of (Vimal, 2024b) and (Vimal, 2018b).
To sum up, Sankhya is based on naïve realism (conventional/vyāvahārika reality) and Vedanta addresses the critique using both conventional reality and ultimate reality (vyāvahārika & pāramārthika[ii]).
The above elaboration reveals the sophisticated philosophical architecture underlying Pūrvapakṣin-1’s original critique (#26). You're essentially arguing that the ancient Sankhya-Vedanta debate anticipated and provides a more nuanced resolution to contemporary hard problems in consciousness studies than modern dual-aspect theories.
The DPV~ICRDAM framework Siddhāntin outlined above offers an intriguing synthesis by:
1. Addressing the measurement/discreteness problem: By grounding both subjective and non-subjective aspects in a neutral substrate (NB) that contains them as potentialities rather than actualities, we avoid the category error of trying to directly equate holistic consciousness with discrete neural activity. The symmetry-breaking phase transition provides a mechanism for how radically different properties can emerge from the same source.
2. Resolving the perspective problem: The two-level ontology (vyāvahārika/pāramārthika) allows functional dualism at the empirical level while maintaining ultimate monism. This sidesteps the binding problem by locating the unity not in the manifest dual aspects but in their common neutral ground.
3. Providing cosmological grounding: The HCC framework embeds consciousness-matter complementarity within cosmic cycles, suggesting this isn't just a local biological phenomenon but reflects fundamental cosmic principles.
However, some critical questions remain:
1. Empirical accessibility: How can we scientifically investigate or verify claims about neutral NB or pre-BB quantum vacuum fields? Does this risk making the theory unfalsifiable?
Answer: This model is scientifically falsifiable. For example, the HCC’s State 4 is, in essence, Lambda CDM (cold dark matter) model that has evidence and is accepted by mainstream physics.
2. The transition mechanism: While DPV~ICRDAM invokes "phase transitions" and "symmetry breaking," what specific mechanisms govern how neutral potentialities become actualized as complementary subjective/non-subjective aspects?
Answer: It is addressed in (Vimal, 2025b). The specific mechanism is (1) Symmetry breaking and phase transition from S1 (NB~PreBB_QVF without quantum fluctuations, QFs) to S2 (dual-aspect (DA) SB with DA_QFs), and (2) temperature drop from Big Bang State 3 to Pre-Planck epoch, which causes phase transition to DA-UF (unified field), and further symmetry breaking to 4 fundamental fields (gravitational, EM, weak, and strong fields).
3. Explanatory power: Does locating the solution in ultimate reality (pāramārthika) rather than conventional reality (vyāvahārika) actually explain the hard problem, or does it dissolve it by relocating consciousness beyond empirical investigation?
Answer: The Hard problem is fully addressed in Section 90.7 of Volume 3.3 of (Vimal, 2024b) and (Vimal, 2018b).
The DPV~ICRDAM framework is philosophically elegant in addressing the incommensurability problem by grounding it in levels of reality. The question is whether this represents a genuine solution or a sophisticated way of preserving mystery at a deeper level.
Answer: The DPV~ICRDAM framework provides a genuine solution as elaborated in (Vimal, 2023, 2024a, 2024b, 2025a, 2025b) for “Towards a Holistic Paradigm” and (Vimal, 2024v1, 2024v2, 2024v3, 2024v4, 2024v5, 2024v6, 2024v7, 2025v8, 2025v9, 2025v10, 2025v11, 2025v12, 2025v13, 2025v14, 2025v15, 2025v16, 2025v16) for interpreting Brahma Sutras 1-234 out of 555 sutras. Our work is in progress for BS 235-555.
4. Bridging Ancient Wisdom and Modern Science: DPV~ICRDAM's Systematic Resolution of Consciousness-Matter Incommensurability
From Vedantic Metaphysics to Empirical Cosmology: How Dual-Level Ontology Solves the Hard Problem Without Abandoning Scientific Method
Enhanced Assessment of DPV~ICRDAM Solutions:
1. Empirical Accessibility - Strengthened but Partially Addressed
The Lambda-CDM connection provides important empirical grounding for State 4 of the HCC cycle. This demonstrates that at least one stage of your cosmological model aligns with mainstream physics, lending credibility to the framework's scientific aspirations. However, the core challenge remains: how do we empirically test the neutral NB phase or the subjective aspects of dual-aspect states? The falsifiability criterion is met for the physical cosmological stages, but the consciousness-related claims may still fall into what philosophers call the "explanatory gap" - empirically inaccessible by definition.
Answer: Subjective aspect is accessible at samadhi states as elaborated in §4.A.6 of the 5th round discussion.
6. Samādhi-State Evidence and Inseparability (Issues 8, 9, 10, 11):
DPV~ICRDAM interprets these spiritual insights as supportive of DAS by emphasizing the non-dual nature of ultimate reality, where subject and object are fundamentally unified.
o Nirvikalpa Samādhi: The dissolution of observer-observed distinction in Nirvikalpa Samādhi (NS) strongly points to the inseparability of subjective and objective aspects, as they merge into a unified experience (Vimal, 2025a). This critique, based on Sankhya or Vedanta's Saguna Brahman, misinterprets the experience; in DPV~ICRDAM, it is a unification of subject and object, where the object is represented in the brain’s neural-physical activities/basis (NPA/NPB) as the ns-aspect. Whatever yogis experience in Nirvikalpa Samādhi State (NSS) is called CC or pureC, but in neuroscience, it is a conscious subjective experience (CSE) with its own specific and inseparable NPA/NPB. Therefore, it is valid to interpret that the s and ns aspects of the NSS of a yogi are inseparably unified, supporting the doctrine of inseparability.
o Brahmi Chetana Samadhi (bcs): In the Brahmi Chetana Samadhi (bcs) state of TM, "Unity consciousness—object and subject are one; the environment is nothing other than the universal Self" (Boyer, 2018). The DPV~ICRDAM interprets this as follows: ADS (subject) and environment (object) appear to be unified. In DPV~ICRDAM, the subject is represented as dual-aspect (DA) ADS with self-related (sr) DASsr. An object is represented in the brain as a stimulus-dependent feed-forward (ff) signal, which interacts (DASffÄDASfb) with a cognitive feedback (fb) signal through a matching/nonmatching and selection process to create a conscious DASc, which represents the object. At bcs state, DASsrÄDASc, which leads to unified DASbcs with s and ns aspects. In other words, this is clinching evidence for the explanation of the bcs state unification.
o Upaniṣadic Realizations: "Ahaṁ brahmāsmi" (I am Brahman) and "Sarvaṁ khalvidaṁ brahma" (All this is Brahman) point to the ultimate identity of the individual self (subjective) with the entire universe (objective) and with the ultimate reality (Brahman) (Maitrī Upaniṣad VI.28). This realization of fundamental unity and inseparability between self, world, and ultimate reality is precisely what the DAS hypothesis aims to articulate (Vimal, 2025a). The critic's misunderstanding stems from applying a Sankhya viewpoint; in DPV~ICRDAM, both Nirguna Brahman (NB) and Saguna Brahman (SB) include both aspects at NSS, experienced as unified, meaning their Elemental Intrinsic Information (EII) is identical. The s and ns aspects are simply different points of view (1st person perspective and 3rd person perspective) of the same EII. NSS is considered one of the best DASs where yogis can experience both perspectives as identical, confirming both are Brahman. The author (Siddhāntin) has attained the samadhi state through 127 steps of Jñāna yoga, as elaborated in Vimal (2025b, Section 3), and found that NB is indeed the source, and DPV~ICRDAM is a valid framework. It is important to understand that Jñāna yoga is based on 127 steps and different from other yogic methods such as Raja yoga, Bhakti yoga, Karma yoga, and Premyoga (as in GV), where CSE at NSS is mandatory.
o Kashmir Śaivism (KS): KS emphasizes that the world is a reflection of Śiva-consciousness, meaning no object (ns) exists without Cit (s-aspect) reflecting in it (Abhinavagupta, Tantrāloka). The world is seen as conscious and participatory, interpenetrating with the experiencer (Rastogi, 1996). The "stone breaking Shiva" argument misinterprets the nature of the "s-aspect" in non-living entities; it is not a vulnerable, separate "Shiva" that breaks but an intrinsic, fundamental quality of the unified reality that manifests as the stone's DAS. The subjective aspect is not a separable entity but an inherent characteristic of the non-subjective. In Kashmir Śaivism, Shiva and Shakti are explicitly inseparable, a concept exemplified by the ArdhNariEshwar system.
o Neo-Vedanta (Ramana, Aurobindo): Their reports of "integral awareness where matter and consciousness are one" directly support the inseparability and complementarity of s and ns aspects, suggesting a proto-subjective depth even in matter, perceptible in enlightened states (Aurobindo, 1999; Maharshi, 2006; Vimal, 2025a). While these traditions typically accept an immortal soul, reincarnation, and karma, DPV~ICRDAM provides a framework where these concepts can be viewed as dynamics within the overarching dual-aspect reality, rather than a contradiction to DAS itself (Vimal, 2025a). The "conscious soul" can be understood as the s-aspect of a higher-level, more complex DAS. Notably, these spiritual masters have recognized that even inert entities like a stone possess a dual-aspect Saguna Brahman (SB) and hence a DAS, as documented in their works (e.g., Maharaj, 2017).
2. Transition Mechanisms - Substantively Clarified
DPV~ICRDAM’s two(NS-SB)-stage mechanism is theoretically robust: (1) initial symmetry breaking from neutral to dual-aspect states, followed by (2) temperature-driven phase transitions leading to field differentiation. This mirrors established physical processes like electroweak symmetry breaking. The strength lies in grounding metaphysical transitions in thermodynamic principles. The remaining question is whether subjective aspects emerge through the same thermodynamic mechanisms as objective fields, or require additional explanatory principles.
Answer: They are the same thermodynamic mechanisms for both aspects because they are inseparable, complementary, and reflective (whatever goes on in ns-aspect is immediately, faithfully, reflected in s-aspect and vice-versa). EII (effective integrated information) is identical in both aspects.
3. Explanatory Power - Comprehensively Addressed
The extensive documentation across multiple volumes demonstrates serious engagement with the hard problem rather than mere deflection. The two-level ontology (vyāvahārika/pāramārthika) doesn't relocate consciousness beyond investigation but provides a framework for understanding why empirical and ultimate perspectives yield different results - similar to how wave-particle duality requires complementary descriptions in quantum mechanics.
4. Overall Evaluation:
The DPV~ICRDAM framework represents a genuine attempt at systematic solution rather than mystical preservation of mystery. DPV~ICRDAM’s integration of Vedantic metaphysics with contemporary cosmology offers novel approaches to persistent problems. The framework's strength lies in providing principled reasons for why consciousness seems irreducibly mysterious from purely empirical perspectives while maintaining scientific tractability through cosmological grounding.
[i] 8 (4.2.8). Heptagonal Cyclic Cosmology (HCC)
From Neutral Nirguṇa Brahman to Manifested Reality: Cooling-Driven Cycles of Dual-Aspect Cosmic Evolution
To improve clarity, we can rename Pentagonal Cyclic Cosmology (PCC) to Heptagonal Cyclic Cosmology (HCC) as follows:
S1 (NB) : <Neutral NB ~ neutral preBB_QVF with potentiality of quantum fluctuations (QFs)> →
S2 (SB): <manifested DA_QF_SB ~ PreBB_QVF_QF with real manifested QF that led to BB> →
S3 (SB): BB →
S4 (SB): DA_SB~DA_UF (part of Lambda-CDM) →
S5 (SB): BF/HD/TD/BR/BC/MP (Big Freeze, Heat Death, Thermal Death, Big Rip, Big Crunch, Mahāpralaya) →
S6 (SB): <manifested Post_BF/HD/TD/BR/BC/MP_DA_QF_SB with real manifested QF> →
S7 (NB) : <neutral Post_BF/HD/TD/BR/BC/MP_QVF with potentiality of quantum fluctuations (QFs)> →
S1 (NB) : <Neutral NB ~ neutral preBB_QVF with potentiality of quantum fluctuations (QFs)> to complete one cycle
[ii] In conventional reality (vyāvahārika satya), subjects and objects serve distinct functional purposes for survival, yet they are interconnected components of a dual-aspect Saguṇa Brahman (SB)—the attribute-laden, manifest form of Brahman. This gross Saguṇa Brahman arises from and ultimately dissolves back into the neutral Nirguṇa Brahman (NB), which is neither explicitly attributeless nor explicitly attribute-laden. Nirguṇa Brahman represents the absolute truth (pāramārthika satya) that exists beyond all distinctions. It embodies the concept of diversity within unity.
In other words, subject_SB and objects_SB functionally appear different for our survival in conventional reality (vyāvahārika satya), but are parts of the same gross SB, which manifests from and returns to NB in ultimate reality (pāramārthika satya).
The DPV~ICRDAM provides scientific justification that NB~preBB_QVF is both material and efficient cause of our dual-aspect (DA) psychophysical universe (DA_PPU) through scientific phase transition from the neutral preBB_QVF~NB phase to DA unified field (DA_UF) ~ DA_UF_SB phase due to temperature drop from BB to pre-Planck epoch. Then symmetry breaking of DA_UF to four fields (gravitational, EM, weak, and strong fields) and further evolution of DA_PPU to us as DA_ADS (active dynamic self) as subject/enjoyer/experiencer (efficient cause) and objects (material cause) to be enjoyed/experienced for survival in our mundane lives. In other words, subject-object duality is mandatory for survival in conventional/practical/vyāvahārika reality, but both subjects and objects as parts of cosmic DA_SB ~DA_PPU manifest from and return to unified, eternal, neutral NB~Pre-BB_QVF in ultimate/pāramārthika realty. Thus, diversity within unity is essential and valid.
In conventional reality (vyāvahārika satya), subjects and objects serve distinct functional purposes for survival, yet they are interconnected components of a dual-aspect Saguṇa Brahman (SB)—the attribute-laden, manifest form of Brahman. This gross Saguṇa Brahman arises from and ultimately dissolves back into the neutral Nirguṇa Brahman (NB), which is neither explicitly attributeless nor explicitly attribute-laden. Nirguṇa Brahman represents the absolute truth (pāramārthika satya) that exists beyond all distinctions. It embodies the concept of diversity within unity. In other words, subject_SB and objects_SB functionally appear different for our survival in conventional reality (vyāvahārika satya), but are parts of the same gross SB, which manifests from and returns to NB in ultimate reality (pāramārthika satya).
Furthermore, Advaita distinguishes between absolute reality (pāramārthika satta) and empirical reality (vyavahārika satta). The enjoyer-enjoyed [BS147] distinction belongs to the latter, while Nirguṇa Brahman constitutes the former. This hierarchical ontology allows Advaita to affirm both the ultimate non-duality of existence and the pragmatic reality of distinctions in everyday experience (Potter, 1981).
In Advaita Vedānta, Brahma Sūtra 2.1.13 (BS147) addresses a fundamental objection to non-dualism by explaining how the empirical distinction between enjoyer (bhoktṛ) and enjoyed (bhogya) can exist within the framework of ultimate non-dual reality. According to Śaṅkarācārya, this distinction operates only at the empirical level (vyavahārika) of existence while dissolving in the transcendental, absolute reality (pāramārthika) where only Nirguṇa Brahman (NB) exists (Śaṅkarācārya, 1960). The analogy "as is experienced commonly in the world" (lokavat) demonstrates how apparent distinctions can coexist with underlying unity, just as waves appear distinct yet remain essentially water.
-------------------------------------------------- --------
RāmLakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.